Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill.
Commercial Gas Bill.
Dewsbury and Ossett Passenger Transport Bill.
Bills committed.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Torquay Corporation) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OVERTIME.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of hours of overtime worked on conveyor faces in the following collieries of the Mansfield district, Rufford, Clipstone, Blidworth, and Ollerton, during the month of January, 1933; and for what reasons the overtime was worked?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The Secretary for Mines is in Geneva, and I have been asked to reply. The number of hours of overtime worked on conveyor faces during January at the collieries in question was as follows:

Rufford Colliery, 495 hours, or 8 per cent, of total time worked.
1564
Clipstone Colliery, 780 hours, or 9 per cent, of total time worked.
Blidworth Colliery, 285 hours, or 3.5 per cent, of total time worked.
Ollerton Colliery, 1,515 hours, or 7.3 per cent, of total time worked.

In all cases the overtime was stated to be due to causes within the scope of Section 1 (2) of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908. These causes were aggravated by the influenza epidemic.

Mr. BROWN: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has come for a review of the regulations, seeing that this is becoming a constant practice in these collieries?

Dr. BURGIN: I will pass on that question to my hon. Friend.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman also point out to the Secretary for Mines that overtime is increasing at all collieries where machines are being used; and does he not think that, wherever overtime can be avoided, it ought to be avoided, in order to employ a larger number of men?

Dr. BURGIN: I think it will be agreed that difficulties are usually experienced during a change-over from hand to machine-working.

Mr. BATEY: Is it not the case that the 495 hours of overtime worked in one month were worked at a colliery where they have had conveyors for a long time; and is not that an excessive number of hours to be worked at a conveyor face?

Dr. BURGIN: I thought I had given fully the reasons applicable in these cases.

Mr. McKEAG: Would the hon. Gentleman submit representations to colliery owners that overtime should be reduced, so that more men might be employed?

OUTPUT (DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give the detailed figures showing the distribution of the coal output for 1913, 1931 and 1932 respectively, with the amount and value of coal exported and for bunker trade, the quantity supplied to the large coal-consuming industries, and for domestic purposes?

Dr. BURGIN: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate such

Production and Distribution of Coal in Great Britain during 1913, 1931 and 1932.


—
1913.
1931.
1932 (provisional).


(1) Production:
Million Statute Tons.


Output of Coal in Great Britain
287.35
219.46
209.24


(2) Distribution:





(a) Quantity Shipped Abroad:





Exports of Coal (see note below).
73.40
42.75
38.90


Exports of Coke
1.24
2.40
2.24


Exports of Manufactured Fuel
2.05
0.76
0.70


Coal Shipped for the use of Steamers engaged in the Foreign Trade (see note below).
21.03
14.61
14.18


Total Quantity of Coal Shipped Abroad (including the coal equivalent of coke and manufactured fuel).
98.34
61.65
57.13


(b) Quantity of Coal available for Home Con-gumption for all purposes (adjusted in respect of shipments to and from Ireland).
183.85
155.68
150.02


(3) Consumption of Coal in Great Britain:





1. Gas Works (excluding the coal equivalent of gas coke exported).
16.7
16.69
Particulars are not yet available.


2. Electricity Generating Stations belonging to authorised undertakings and to railway and tramway authorities.
4.9
9.61



3. Railway Companies (for locomotive use)
13.2
12.27



4. Vessels engaged in the coastwise trade (bunkers).
1.9
1.19



5. Iron Works (used in Blast Furnaces)†
21.2
7.11*



6. Other Iron Works and Steel Works†
10.2 (approx.)
5.50*



7. Collieries (engine fuel)
18.0
12.61



8. General Manufacturers and all other purposes (including Domestic use).‡
97.7
90.70



Total
183.8
155.68
150.02


* Provisional figures.


† These figures cover only the coal, or its equivalent in coke, used in the manufacture of products coming within the purview of the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers by whom the figures were supplied.


‡ These residuary figures are subject to the changes in the stocks of coal held by producers and consumers, as to which information is not available generally. The same considerations apply to the total consumption figures. The consumption of coal for domestic purposes in private houses, public buildings and institutions, including coal for domestic industries and miners' coal, was estimated after the war at 40,000,000 tons a year. Information as to domestic coal consumption in more recent years is not available.


Note.—The declared value f.o.b. of the coal exported was as follows:

QUOTA SYSTEM (LEICESTERSHIRE).

Mr. EVERARD: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, as the Leicestershire collieries principally produce household

information as is available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

coal, and the quota restrictions often in cold weather hinder the domestic supplies, he will consider making this a separate area with its own special quota?

Dr. BURGIN: At the request of the majority of coal-owners in certain districts, including Leicestershire, those districts were amalgamated for the purposes of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, by an Amalgamation Order dated 28th October, 1930, made under that Act. I am advised that the Board of Trade have no power to revoke that Order.

Mr. EVERARD: While my hon. Friend is looking into the interests of the coal-owners, will he also look into the interests of those who require coal in cold weather? Is he aware that, in the household coal-producing part of the country, owing to the quota system, it is often very hard to get coal at all?

Dr. BURGIN: Any person in Leicestershire who is interested can, of course, apply to the district board; but I will pass on the suggestion to my colleague.

NEW HADEN COLLIERIES, CHEADLE.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the discharge of 200 men from the New Haden collieries, Cheadle, Staffordshire, on the ground of insufficiency of quota granted to that colliery; and if, in view of the consequent increase in the number of unemployed in that area and increased charge on public funds, he will endeavour to obtain an early resumption of work at that colliery?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir; my hon. Friend's attention had not previously been called to this matter. It is understood, as the result of inquiries which have been made, that, while a number of men have been discharged from the New Haden colliery, the owners are commencing to draw coal from their Berry Hill colliery, which has been closed for some time. It is to be hoped that the discharge of men from the one pit will be offset by increased employment at the other.

Sir J. LAMB: Is my hon. Friend aware that the quota which has been given to the New Haden colliery would only allow the men to work 1½ days a week at the rate at which they have been producing coal during the last six months; and is there any reason why a man should be sent from one pit, which is
close to his residence, to work at another colliery some distance away?

Dr. BURGIN: We must not have any misapprehension about this matter. This is a case where the quota is allotted to the entire undertaking, leaving those in charge of the undertaking to determine from which pit to draw their coal. They chose to close temporarily one colliery in order to reach a deeper seam, and their men were temporarily transferred to another. Now, as I understand it, that temporary emergency has passed, and the owners of the undertaking have the natural option to select the other colliery from which to draw their coal. I am told that that is the cause of what has been done.

Sir J. LAMB: But is my hon. Friend aware that they are weeks behind with their orders, because, although they already have the coal, they are not allowed to supply it?

Dr. BURGIN: That is a matter about which I will make inquiries.

OWNERS AND MINERS (DISCUSSIONS).

Mr. CAPE: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines the position in respect of the discussions between the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation; and what action, if any, is being taken by the Government to bring the discussion to a successful issue?

Dr. BURGIN: I understand that a preliminary meeting has been held, and that discussions will be resumed after the National Conference of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain on the 1st March, on a date mutually convenient.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the coal-owners refused to discuss the question of wages at the previous meeting, and that our attitude is that at future meetings that question should be raised?

Dr. BURGIN: I think it would be well that I should not, in question and answer, say very much more, when negotiations are proceeding.

Mr. CAPE: If a deputation is to meet the coalowners after the miners' conference, are we to understand that it is going to be a meeting to discuss wages and the future machinery for settlement of wages?

Dr. BURGIN: I do not think that anything of the kind must be understood. The answer I have given, which has been prepared in my colleague's Department for him, means what it says, namely, that the discussions will be resumed after the 1st March on a date convenient to both sides.

Mr. MACDONALD: Has a communication been received by the Department informing the Department that negotiations have broken down between the owners and the men?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir, I have no such information.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Will the lion. Gentleman convey to the Secretary for Mines the desirability of some indication of Government policy, in order to stabilise the situation?

EXPORT TRADE (GERMANY).

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any conclusion has been reached or may be expected at an early date in the negotiations with Germany relating to the exports to that country of British coal?

Dr. BURGIN: The two Governments are still in communication but I am afraid that I cannot give any forecast as to when a conclusion is likely to be reached.

PIT TIMBER (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Customs authorities are charging 10 per cent, import duty on partly squared timber which is used for props and bars in coal mines; that no alternative supplies of such suitable timber are available at economic prices; and if he intends taking any action with a view to the removal of this duty?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am aware that Customs duty is being charged, and quite properly, on timber which cannot be identified at the time of importation as coming within the existing statutory exemption in favour of wooden pit-props imported as such. The fact that the timber may be cut up after importation into props and bars for use in coal mines does not affect the position. As regards the second and third parts of the question, any representations which the interests concerned may wish
to make should be addressed to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member not aware that a definite promise was given when the Bill was being passed that pit props would be exempt from import duty? Is he not also aware that large length partly squared timber is already entering this country and that it is being sawn to the requisite length here? Are we to understand that timber which is sawn to a certain length will not be taxed and that timber which comes in in long lengths and is sawn at the pit-head to the requisite length is to be taxed?

Mr. HOREBELISHA: With regard to the first part of the question, I am aware that that statement was made; and it is also the law that pit bars and poles are exempt from duty. What is not the law is that somebody can import other kinds of timber and then cut them up.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Financial Secertary aware that the import duty on partly squared timber is regarded as a burden on a sorely depressed industry, and will he not make representations to the Advisory Committee that the duty should be removed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is for the interests concerned to make representations.

Mr. REMER: Is my hon. Friend aware that the price of this timber, duty paid, is less now than when the duty was put on?

Mr. NUNN: Is the Financial Secretary aware that representations have been made by the interests concerned on that very point?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Is not the effect of this law to give a bounty to foreign sawmills?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. McKEAG: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of emigrants from this country to the Dominions during the year 1913, the average number for the 10 years 1920–30, and during the year 1932?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The following are the figures
for Canada and Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and British South Africa for the periods in question: 1913, 272,804: average for the 10 years 1921 to 1930, 105,029: the first nine months of 1932, 8,726. The figures for the whole of 1932 are not yet available.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Do I understand that those figures represent the excess of emigration over immigration, or are they merely the gross figures?

Mr. THOMAS: These figures are the gross figures, and they clearly demonstrate what a tremendous influence on our own unemployment figures the prosperity of the Dominions may have.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CANADIAN TARIFF BOARD.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can now state when the Canadian Tariff Board will be prepared to receive and consider applications?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I have every reason to suppose that the Canadian Tariff Board will begin its investigations at an early date, and a first list of commodities, a review of the duties on which is being requested by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under the provisions of Article 13 of the Trade Agreement, is being, communicated to His Majesty's Government in Canada.

CANADA (SURCHARGES ON IMPORTS).

Mr. MANDER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the early abolition of surcharges by the Canadian Government?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Article 17 of the Agreement with Canada provides that all existing surcharges on imports from the United Kingdom into Canada shall be completely abolished as soon as the finances of Canada will allow. This was one of the matters which I discussed with Mr. Bennett on his recent visit to this country, and I am remaining in touch with His Majesty's Government in Canada on the subject.

Mr. MANDER: Does not the hope of any action being taken in this connection really lie in the return of a Liberal Government in Canada?

Mr. THOMAS: If it were to result in the same effect as a Liberal Government in this country, God help them!

Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask the Lord President of the Council if that sort of thing is permissible?

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (PRIMAGE DUTIES).

Mr. MANDER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the abolition of primage duties-by Australia and New Zealand?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Under Articles 14 and 11 of the respective Agreements, His Majesty's Governments in the Commonwealth of Australia and in New Zealand have undertaken to reduce or remove the primage duties as soon as financial conditions permit, and in the case of Australia the duties have been removed on 35 tariff items.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not the fact that in the case of New Zealand the primage duties have actually been raised on a. number of articles from 3 to 5 per cent., and what is the right hon. Gentleman doing about it?

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. Member will put a question down, I will tell him what I will do.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY.

Sir BASIL PETO: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the amount of British tonnage idle and the number of British seamen unemployed, he will take steps to provide that preference granted on imports from the Dominions and Colonies should only apply in the case of goods carried in British ships?

Dr. BURGIN: I am not satisfied that the action suggested by my hon. Friend would ultimately decrease the amount of British tonnage idle or increase the number of British seamen employed.

Sir B. PETO: If the measure that I propose of finding some employment for British seamen does not commend itself to the Government, may I be assured that the matter is receiving their attention and that they have some definite policy in view to restore some measure of employment to British seamen?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly. It will be understood that any suggestion such as the hon. Baronet makes might expose us more than it would help us. It might offer a greater target. It might be that we were more interested in maintaining the present system, than in the suggestion that he has made.

Mr. LOGAN: Was the hon. Gentleman's attention drawn to a Press notice that a captain sailed last week on a White Star liner as a fireman, and does he not see the necessity for British seamen to be employed on these ships?

Dr. BURGIN: Certainly, that necessity is being borne in. mind.

. Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 31
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet decided on the steps which he proposes to take to assist the British shipbuilding industry; and, if so, will he state what they are?

Dr. BURGIN: No scheme of Government assistance for shipbuilding generally is under consideration but His Majesty's Government have already taken steps to secure that the international aspects of shipping and shipbuilding as they affect this country shall be brought prominently to the notice of the World Economic Conference.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend, the cause of whose absence we all deplore, that in view of his statement the other night at the annual dinner of the Chamber of Shipping, to the effect that certain measures of assistance were in contemplation, the country is anxiously awaiting to hear the steps proposed? And will be consider early action either by subsidies, or limiting the life of existing ships, or such other measures as may be effective?

Dr. BURGIN: I will communicate those observations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman put before the Government the fact that three out of every five persons in this industry are unemployed? It is the worst industry in Britain.

Dr. BURGIN: It is receiving a great deal of attention with a view to trying to remedy that state of affairs.

Mr. MAXTON: We have been having that for 10 years now.

ARGENTINA.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take the opportunity of the presence in London of the Argentine mission to point out the difficulties arising in Anglo-Argentine trade from the fact that we buy annually approximately £50,000,000 worth of Argentine productions whereas the Argentine buys only £11,000,000 worth of United Kingdom goods; and will he ask the mission to take steps to reduce this inequality in mutual trade?

Dr. BURGIN: My hon. and learned Friend may rest assured that this matter and all relevant considerations are being taken into account.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (AUSTRALIA).

Mr. MANDER: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction felt by many manufacturers at the failure of the Australian Government so far to carry out the terms of the Ottawa Agreement giving opportunity for reasonable competition; and if he can state how many cases have already been dealt with by the Australian Tariff Board?

Dr. BURGIN: The Commonwealth Act confirming the Trade Agreement concluded at Ottawa was passed on 2nd December, 1932. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are at present in communication with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia as to the method of giving effect to the Articles of the Agreement which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many cases that came before the board of a pre-Ottawa nature have not been dealt with yet?

AUSTRIA (ENGLISH COTTON YARN IMPORTS).

Captain FULLER: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Austrian Government have just passed a measure prohibiting the importation of various English cotton yarns; and what representations are being made in the matter?

Dr. BURGIN: This prohibition applies equally to yarns from all sources, and it is understood that their importation will be permitted under licence. No question of discrimination arises, never-
theless, His Majesty's Government are concerned at this new restriction, and the attention of the Austrian Government is being drawn to its possible effects on British interests.

Captain FULLER: Will the hon. Gentleman keep before him the possibility of still further restriction now that we have agreed to another loan to Austria?

Dr. BURGIN: Yes, Sir.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing to use the bargaining power conferred by our system of tariffs in order to redress this?

Dr. BURGIN: I should like notice of that question.

MANCHURIA.

Captain CAZALET: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any figures to show what has been the total volume and value of our export trade to Manchuria since the Japanese declaration of the independent state of Manchukuo?

Dr. BURGIN: I regret that the desired information is not available, as particulars of the trade of the United Kingdom with Manchuria are not separately recorded.

Captain CAZALET: Has there been a decrease or an increase in general trade with whatever part of China about which it is possible to get statistics since the declaration of independence of Manchukuo?

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question, it may be possible to help him. The point with regard to Manchuria is that it has been partly treated as China and partly as Japan. There are no separate figures.

RUSSIA.

Mr. LIDDALL: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a statement in regard to the negotiations which have been taking place for effecting the new trading agreement with the Soviet Government?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir.

Mr. LIDDALL: Are the negotiations proceeding satisfactorily?

Dr. BURGIN: They are proceeding, and, while that is so, I think it is un-
wise to discuss them in detail by question and answer.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that no binding agreement will be entered into with the Soviet Government without the House of Commons first having an opportunity of seeing the draft of any proposed agreement?

Dr. BURGIN: I think that is a matter that I should like to be put to the President of the Board of Trade personally.

BALANCE OF TRADE.

Sir H. SAMUEL: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now give an estimate of the national balance of trade for 1932, including both visible and invisible imports and exports?

Dr. BURGIN: Following the usual practice, an estimate of the balance of trade for the year 1932 will be published in the "Board of Trade Journal" on 23rd February.

TARIFF REDUCTIONS (NEGOTIATIONS).

Sir H. SAMUEL: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the present negotiations with foreign countries for reduction of tariffs are being conducted on the basis that the most-favoured-nation clause in our commercial treaties is to be maintained?

Dr. BURGIN: As a general rule the negotiations are being conducted on the basis of the most-favoured-nation clause in existing treaties but His Majesty's Government must be guided in the case of each particular country by the circumstances.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Agriculture in an interview with a Danish paper said that they are doubtful of the value of negotiating on those lines, and is that the view of the Government?

Dr. BURGIN: I can only deal with the question on the Paper. The answer is as I have given it, that as a general rule these negotiations are being conducted on that basis, but particular cases must be dealt with in a particular manner.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, from the whole of
the discussions and negotiations which have taken place, any results have so far been achieved?

GERMANY (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Captain FULLER: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to mitigate the effect of any further restriction of imports into Germany especially in cotton yarns, cotton tissues, and cotton threads, in view of the effect they will have on employment in Lancashire in particular or the country in general?

Dr. BURGIN: The hon. and gallant Member no doubt has in mind the increases in certain customs duties which the German Government propose to bring into operation on 1st March. I am having the position examined with a view to estimating the probable effect of the increases on our export trade.

Mr. WHITE: Will the hon. Gentleman make effective use in this matter of the bargaining powers with regard to the tariff system?

Dr. BURGIN: That is one of the factors which will be borne in mind.

IMPOST DUTIES (TIMBER).

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government is aware that the difficulties of the timber trade, both native and foreign, are aggravated by the delay of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in coming to a decision upon the application for additional duties on timber which were lodged in the early summer of last year; and whether he will take such steps as lie in his power to enable earlier decisions to be reached?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the question of additional duties on timber is a very complicated subject with wide ramifications but I have no reason to suppose that the Committee are not proceeding with due expedition in this matter. With regard to the last part of the question I would refer him to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) on the 20th December last of which I am sending him a copy.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a great deal
of unemployment owing to the difficulty experienced by timber merchants in buying British timber and cannot he for the sake of the unemployed in the rural districts do something to hurry up a decision?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find the answer to which I have referred him is exhaustive.

Mr. WHITE: Is the Financial Secretary aware that one of the difficulties in the way of the export trade is the increased cost of packages of every kind?

CANADIAN WHEAT (AMERICAN SHIPMENT).

Commander MARSDEN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of Canadian-grown wheat landed in this country since the passing into Law of the Ottawa Agreements Act, consigned here from Canada but shipped from United States ports; and bow much of the total amount has been accorded by the Commissioners of Customs the full rebate allowed under the Act?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total quantity of wheat consigned from Canada which was admitted to preference in the period from 17th November last to 31st January was 3,343,514 quarters of 480 lbs. Statistics of the proportion of this amount which came through United States ports are not available nor is it possible to state the quantity of Canadian-grown wheat which was shipped from United States ports.

Commander MARSDEN: Can the Financial Secretary give us an assurance that no Canadian wheat shipped from United States ports is getting any rebate?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question depends upon whether it is consigned from Canada.

Commander MARSDEN: I have put that in my question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, and I have given my hon. and gallant Friend the answer.

Mr. WHITE: Will the hon. Member call for a full report into this matter in order that he may satisfy himself and the Government that this arrangement is not contrary to the interests of the growers in Western Canada and the users in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state to the House when work is likely to be resumed on the new Cunarder 534 in John Brown's yard in Clydebank?

Dr. BURGIN: I can add nothing to the statement made in Debate on 16th February by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are conversations still proceeding between the Government, the Cunard Company, and the White Star Company?

Dr. BURGIN: As far as I know, Yes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman advise me when it will be suitable to the Government for me to put down a further question on this vital matter?

Dr. BURGIN: I will gladly let the hon. Member know when I think the time is most ripe for another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST EROSION (NORFOLK).

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that property owners have suffered considerable losses owing to cliff falls along the North Norfolk coast, especially between Cromer and Mundesley; and whether he is prepared to take steps to prevent further erosion?

Dr. BURGIN: I am aware of considerable falls of cliff in this area but I have no power to take the action suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED PREMISES (BEER GLASSES).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the practice on some licensed premises by which, on being specifically asked for a half-pint of beer, it is served in a glass which does not bear the Government stamp and which in a large number of eases does not contain a full half-pint; and what steps does he propose to take?

Dr. BURGIN: It is an offence under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and also under the Weights and Measures Acts to serve a half-pint of beer in an unstamped glass. It is also
an offence under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, if short measure is given. I am not aware that these offences are numerous and the provisions of the existing law appear to be sufficient to protect the consumer against them.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Would the hon. Gentleman consider accepting an invitation to take beer with me on certain licensed premises where I can show him what is going on?

Dr. BURGIN: Gladly.

Mr. McKEAG: Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that there is more hygienic washing of such glasses?

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL RECEIVER (STAFF).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the difficulty in coping with the work of the Department of the Official Receiver owing to illness or shortage of staff, he will consider the advisability of providing temporary staff in order to enable the Official Receiver to complete the investigations into the affairs of companies now in liquidation and thereby expedite reports to the court or to the Law Officers?

Dr. BURGIN: There is at the present time no avoidable delay in the completion of the investigations into the affairs of companies now in liquidation. Apparent delay is not infrequently due to causes outside the control of the Official Receiver, and the work is of a complicated and technical nature which cannot satisfactorily be done by inexperienced and temporary staff. Substantial additions have been made in the last two years to the staff of the Department in order to cope with the increased work, and the position is kept under constant review.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has recently approved a new scheme of administration for the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund; if so, whether he consulted anyone representing the interests concerned as to the expediency and fairness of the changes proposed?

Dr. BURGIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir M. WOOD: Will the hon. Member say who was sent as representative of the Scottish fishermen?

Dr. BURGIN: The governing body which prepared the scheme includes a representative of the fishermen. The scheme was drafted by the Board of Trade, through the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office.

Sir M. WOOD: Did the representative of the fishermen represent the Scottish fishermen, and has he any knowledge or connection with the fishermen?

Dr. BURGIN: The Scottish Office consulted the Scottish Fishery Board which includes the Scottish fishing industry.

Sir M. WOOD: Is the hon. Member aware that Members of Parliament asked for a copy of the draft Agreement before it was confirmed and were unable to get it? Can he give any reason why they were refused an opportunity of seeing that document?

Dr. BURGIN: I must have notice of that question.

Sir M. WOOD: Will the hon. Member send me a copy of the Agreement now?

Dr. BURGIN: I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS (PROMOTION).

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the block in promotion of subalterns to the rank of captain, and that in many regiments there are subalterns of 15, 16 and even 17 years' service, with no immediate prospect of promotion; and whether the War Office will consider the advisability of granting the brevet rank of captain to all officers of over 10 years' service who have qualified for that rank?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am aware of the existing block in promotion to the rank of captain. The matter was fully examined last year and, as a result, an increase of 2s. a day was approved in the rate of pay of
lieutenants of cavalry, infantry and Royal Tank Corps having 13 years' commissioned service. The question of instituting a rank of brevet captain was considered but was not approved.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Royal Engineers subalterns are promoted to-day to the rank of captain after 10 years' service, and that there is very grave discontent in the Army among officers generally at the lack of promotion of subalterns of over 10 years' service, and especially when they have reached 17 years' service?

Mr. COOPER: I am aware of that difficulty, which, of course, is due to officers not leaving the Army as frequently as they used to do at an older age, and therefore there is a block in many regiments. It was fully considered last year by the Army Council, and it was decided that this matter probably would be best dealt with by giving to subalterns with a certain amount of service increased pay rather than greater rank.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give the hon. Member notice that I shall raise this question on the Army Estimates, or on the Adjournment, if I have an opportunity.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Dr. JOHN WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what facilities exist for men who have become conscientious objectors since joining the Army to enable them to leave the service?

Mr. COOPER: No special facilities exist other than the normal opportunity given to the soldier to purchase his discharge.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (OFFICER'S ARREST).

Mr. McENTEE: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the alleged offence for which a gentleman holding His Majesty's Commission is under close arrest in the Tower of London; and when it is proposed to hold his trial?

Mr. LEVY: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the officer who is stated to be awaiting trial for an
alleged offence under the Official Secrets Act is detained in the Tower of London and compelled to take exercise exposed to the gaze of the general public?

Mr. MAXTON: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the reasons for maintaining the anonymity of the officer of the Seaforth Highlanders under arrest in the Tower of London; and for what reason this place of imprisonment is being used?

Mr. COOPER: This officer is charged under Section 41 of the Army Act with having committed breaches of the Official Secrets Acts. The trial by General Court Martial will probably take place on a date early in March, subject to the interests of the officer and to the convenience of his legal advisers. He is detained in the Tower of London because it is the most convenient military establishment for the purpose, but he is under no compulsion to take his exercise at a time when he can be seen by the general public. The officer's name was announced as soon as the public interest permitted.

Mr. McENTEE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent photographs being taken when the officer concerned is at exercise?

Mr. COOPER: I have no power, and the authorities have no power in the Tower of London, to prevent the general public taking photographs in parts of the Tower to which they are admitted at the hours at which they are permitted to be there.

Mr. McENTEE: Would not it be possible for exercise to be taken in some place where he is not under the observation of the general public and subject to curiosity?

Mr. COOPER: This is actually happening at the present time.

Mr. LEVY: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to prevent the recurrence of an officer either exposing himself or being exposed to the public gaze and curiosity while he is awaiting trial?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is this the only place in which an officer can be detained, and is not it possible for this officer, while he is awaiting his charge, like any other person with a charge against him, to be allowed bail during the time?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will my hon. Friend, in replying, say why it was not possible to detain this officer under arrest in the Aldershot Command in the usual way?

Mr. COOPER: There are many reasons which render it desirable that he should be detained in London, and officers are often detained in London. It was desirable to remove him from Aldershot with a view to preparing the case, and giving him the advantage of preparing his case. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), there are, of course, only two or three barracks in London where we can. detain prisoners. Wellington Barracks are more exposed to the public eye than the Tower of London, and Chelsea Barracks are not so convenient from many points of view, especially from the point of view of the amenities of the prisoner himself. In regard to the question of bail, the hon. Member knows that all prisoners are not allowed bail, and this is not a case in which bail can be allowed.

Captain FULLER: I take it that when the hon. Gentleman says "prisoner" he means "accused"?

Mr. COOPER: Accused.

UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT.

Brigadier-General NATION: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a decision has been arrived at yet as to the adoption or otherwise of the new pattern uniform and equipment that has been on trial in certain units in the Army?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir. Trials are still in progress, and it is unlikely that any conclusion will be reached until after the 1933 training season.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TEST WORK (MONTROSE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the text of his letter to the county council of Angus regarding test work at Montrose; whether the county council refuse to carry out the terms of that letter; and if he will state if he proposes taking any further action?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the letter sent to the county council by the Department of Health for Scotland and of the correspondence that has since taken place. The Department's letter indicated that in the opinion of the Scottish Law Officers the arrangements in operation at Montrose for setting to work able-bodied applicants for relief were illegal and called on the county council to terminate them. As regards the last part of the question, pending the receipt of a final reply from the county council, my right hon. Friend is unable to say what further action, if any, will be necessary.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the Under-Secretary say what is to happen to poor applicants who refuse to do an illegal task? The law has said that this work is illegal. If poor people refuse to do what has been declared illegal, will the hon. Member's Department see that some provision is made for those poor people who refuse to do an illegal task?

Mr. SKELTON: I will consider that question, and, if the hon. Member will repeat it at a date not far ahead, I think that I shall be able to give him more particulars.

HOUSING.

Mr. TRAIN: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to ensure a reduction of the rate of interest on new loans to local authorities in Scotland to enable them to erect houses for slum clearance?

Mr. SKELTON: In so far as local authorities borrow money for housing purposes otherwise than by the issue of local bonds or from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, the rate of interest to be paid is a matter for each local authority who will no doubt negotiate loans in the open market or otherwise on the best available terms. As regards housing loans raised by means of the issue of local bonds, the standard rate for housing bonds is at present fixed at 3½ per cent, and the Treasury are prepared to give favourable consideration to applications for permission to borrow at a lower rate where any authority finds it possible to do so. Housing loans advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners are made at the minimum
rate for the time being applicable to loans from the Local Loans Fund. This rate is fixed by the Treasury and is constantly under review.

Mr. TRAIN: Is it the case that the present rate charged by the Local Loans Board is 4 per cent, and that those local authorities 'who can borrow from the public can borrow at 2½ to 3 per cent. Will the hon. Member take steps to see that those authorities who are under the £250,000 valuation can get cheap money, in order that they may clear the slums, equally with the other authorities?

Mr. SKELTON: I will convey my hon. Friend's observations to the Treasury.

MARR COLLEGE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to place the facilities offered by the Marr College at the disposal of the students for whose interests it was built and equipped?

Mr. SKELTON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply to his question of the 14th February. The Endowment Commissioners' proposals with reference to the scheme for the future government and management of the Marr Trust, including a provision for the opening of the Marr College within a specified period, are still engaging my right hon. Friend's attention and are receiving the anxious consideration which the magnitude of the endowment demands.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is it not the case that for several months this college has been fully equipped and that students are anxiously waiting to get into it; the masters engaged and the headmaster appointed. Cannot something be done?

Mr. SKELTON: I am aware of the situation, and I am also aware of the extreme importance of a satisfactory solution of this difficult question.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely some common-sense might be brought to bear on this matter. Is nothing being done to make it possible that the college shall be at the disposal of the young folk of the district while their elders are debating and discussing how it can be best controlled?

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid that I' cannot add to my answer. The scheme ought not to be partially put into operation.

Mr. MAXTON: Is it quite impossible to open this school, which has now become completed for 12 months, and allow the masters, who have been appointed, to get to work, and take in the children who are anxious to get in? Is that beyond the power of the Scottish Office?

Mr. SKELTON: I think it is eminently undesirable in the circumstances.

EDUCATION ENDOWMENTS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the Court of Session decision in regard to the Marr Trust, he will consider introducing legislation designed to safeguard the wishes of testators being carried out after their death?

Mr. SKELTON: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider that such legislation as is suggested is called for. My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that Parliament has entrusted the present Endowments Commission, as it did its predecessor of 1882, with a large discretion to review and revise educational endowments. But these powers are subject to appropriate safeguards—provisions for publicity and consideration of objections, for review by the Scottish Education Department, for appeal to the Court on questions of Law, for appeal to the Houses of Parliament—before a scheme is submitted to His Majesty in Council for approval.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This is a matter of some substance to Scotland, and I should like to ask whether it is the considered policy of the Government to allow an outside body like the Educational Endowment Commissioners to interfere with the deliberate wishes of a testator who desires to have this money put to a definite purpose?

Mr. SKELTON: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that the procedure is the result of an Act of Parliament; and there is no reason to amend the law. It is the course of action adopted in a previous generation. I should like to send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the report of the committee upon which the decision was based, in order
that he may see the way in which this difficult question was handled by the committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Dr. J. WILLIAMS: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what capital expenditure, or interest on money expended, by private corporations was guaranteed by the British Government during the year 1932; and if he has under consideration proposals for assisting other commercial ventures on terms similar to those to be granted to building societies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No such guarantees were given by His Majesty's Government during the year 1932. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider in his next Budget the advisability of placing parents who apprentice their children to industry in the same position as those parents who under the Finance Act, 1920, Section 21, are en titled to deduction for children over 16 years receiving full-time instruction at any university, college, school, or other educational establishment?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: All relevant matters will be taken into consideration in framing the next Budget. But my right hon. Friend cannot of course anticipate what the decision will be on any particular question.

Mr. MITCHESON: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases rewards have been paid, and what is the total amount thereof during the current financial year, to persons giving information to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to other taxpayer's incomes; and whether, as this practice may tend to the commission of blackmail and in view of other hardships which may be caused to innocent persons, he will take immediate steps to stop the practice of accepting such information and rewarding such informers?

Mr. HORE - BELISHA: Rewards amounting to £535 have been paid by
the Commissioners of Inland Revenue during the current financial year to 10 informers. As regards the second part of the question I can add nothing to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 17th March, 1932.

Mr. MITCHESON: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a very great and very deep resentment throughout the country at what is considered to be an un-English method of dealing with the matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. I do not think that any embarrassment is caused to unrighteousness.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ascertain to what extent the levying of Entertainments Duty upon theatres has resulted in unemployment amongst artistes, musicians, and other workers connected with the theatrical industry, with a view to relieving all entertainments in which personal performances constitute the major part of all Entertainments Duty, in accordance with the precedent recently created by the Irish Free State?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am afraid that it would not be possible to ascertain to what extent, if any, the Entertainments Duty has resulted in unemployment in the theatrical industry, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the claims of that industry will be considered, in common with the claims of other sections of the entertainments trade, if and when the incidence of the tax is brought under review.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority Entertainments Duty is now being charged upon public dinners which are followed by songs or other entertainments; and why such tax has not been charged in the past?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There has been no change in the practice as regards charging Entertainments Duty in the case of public dinners followed by entertainments. The fact that a dinner may precede a taxable entertainment does not relieve and never has relieved from liability payments for admission to the entertainment, whether or not the pay-
ments are combined with the charge for the dinner. If the payment is a combined one, duty is charged only on that portion which is attributable to the entertainment.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is the hon. Member aware that the tax is now being charged on public dinners followed by entertainments, which have gone on for years without such a tax being charged? Has the tax been evaded in the past, or is it a new imposition?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that the tax is now being charged on seats which originally cost only 3d., and which ought never to have been taxed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), I may say that there has been no change whatever in regard to discriminating between that part of a dinner which is entertainment and that part which is not.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Does the hon. Member think that these functions ought to be taxed out of existence?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries which are to be represented at the World Economic Conference are now on the Gold Standard and which are not?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should hesitate where to draw the dividing line between those countries which are and those which are not on the Gold Standard at the present time. The list of countries in which the currency is not only at gold parity but is also freely convertible into gold or foreign exchange on demand is a very short one, comprising few others than the United States, France, Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands, and their several dependencies. Many other countries have kept their exchanges at or close to parity by means of more or less rigorous systems of exchange control.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Member be able to give us more precise details before the conference takes place?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I thought the details I had given were precise.

Mr. MAXTON: Perhaps the circumstances will alter between now and the date of the conference. Will the hon. Member be able to tell us exactly how the matter stands before the conference takes place?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. At any given moment my answer will always be precise.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALE SERVANT LICENCE DUTY.

Captain STRICKLAND: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in cases in which permanent work is being found for unemployed mien as gardeners, chauffeurs, etc., extra to the number usually so engaged, the employer is being asked to pay an annual tax of 15s.; whether in such cases he will issue instructions that this demand shall not be made; and whether, in order to relieve unemployment, he will take steps to abolish the tax on men-servants?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Male Servant Licence Duty in England and Wales is not an Imperial but a local taxation duty, and its administration rests with the county councils and county borough councils which receive the proceeds. As he has stated on a previous occasion, my right hon. Friend could not undertake to introduce legislation which would deprive county authorities of this part of their revenue unless he were sure of their unanimous consent and that a demand would not be made on the Exchequer to replace the revenue surrendered.

Captain DOWER: Would it be possible to make a recommendation to the local authorities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no doubt that my hon. and gallant Friend's question will be so construed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEARTS OF OAK ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. ROBINSON: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the liquidation of the Hearts of Oak Assurance Company, Limited; whether he is aware that the savings of a number of poor people, which had been invested in endowment policies, have been lost; and whether the Government will consider
legislative steps by means of which a similar disaster may be prevented in future?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The insolvency and consequent winding up of this company have been brought about by depletion of its assets in respect of which an ex-official of the company has been committed for trial on a charge of fraudulently converting assets of the company to the value of approximately £100,000. The ease appears to be an exceptional one and it would be premature to consider legislation at the present juncture. I am not at present in a position to say to what extent holders of industrial assurance endowment policies will suffer loss.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does not the Financial Secretary think that the regulations regarding insurance companies ought to be tightened up, as in this case many thousands of miserable poor people have been paying premiums and have now lost all the benefits?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know to what extent that is true.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing the importance of this matter, may I ask what steps the Department are taking to see that nothing resembling this occurs again?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The legislation on the subject is drawn as carefully as it is possible to draw it, and whenever any defects appear they are at once dealt with.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But what steps are the Department taking to see that the provisions of the Statute are administratively carried out? Is the Financial Secretary calling for a special report on the administration?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FOREIGN FIRMS).

Mr. MITCHESON: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make arrangements to secure through the different Departments of State concerned information as to all contracts for the supply of goods to such Departments which have been granted to firms under foreign ownership and control but registered in Great Britain during the last five years; and whether he will lay such information before the House?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have made inquiries of the principal purchasing Departments and regret to inform my ho-n. Friend that the information for which he asks is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 64.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of claims submitted outside the seven years for the period 1st January to 31st December, 1932; the number of such claims admitted; and the total number of claims that have been admitted outside the seven years' time limit?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The number of applications received during the period referred to was 4,847, and the number recognised was 361, including cases which required no more than medical or surgical treatment. The aggregate number of late applications which have at any time in past years been recognised was up to the end of December last 3,393.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the Minister of Pensions say how many of the 361 cases have actually been granted a pension?

Major TRYON: Not without notice. If the hon. Member will, give me notice, I can give him the figures.

Mr. CROOKE: 65.
asked the Minister of Pensions if, in view of the fact that the recent death of Field-Marshal Sir William Robertson was attributable to War service and that the late Earl Haig's death was certified as having, been also caused by War strain, in both cases the complaint not showing itself until considerably over the seven years during which an ex-service man can submit a claim for a disability pension, he will now take steps to repeal Section 5 of the War Pensions Act of 1921 and do away entirely with the time limit?

Major TRYON: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend is well aware, arrangements have been for some years in operation by which belated applications for compensation in respect of War disablement can be made and dealt with.

Mr. CROOKE: In view of the fact that the present cost to the country of War pensions is considerably less than it was a few years ago, will the right hon.
and gallant Gentleman give further consideration to the matter?

Major TRYON: I cannot undertake to give further consideration to this question because it has been fully considered by the present Government. It can only be dealt with by legislation or administration. When the seven years period began to operate the last Conservative Government—I was the Minister responsible— made administrative arrangements which enabled pensions to be granted. When the Labour Government came in they went into the matter afresh and decided that it was the best way to deal with the matter. We are continuing the same arrangement.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has there been any alteration in the administrative arrangements either for improving or worsening them, or are they just the same as they were under the late Government?

Major TRYON: They are exactly the same. We are doing all that we can to get the cases settled as quickly as possible, but there is no change whatever in principle.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Is it not the case that the British Legion are not pressing any claims under the seven years limit?

Major TRYON: We are getting very few claims from anywhere, as is only natural so many years after the War.

Mr. CROOKE: It is not the case as stated by my hon. Friend; the British Legion advocates all the year round the abolition of the seven years time limit?

Major TRYON: The answer I gave was to the question as to whether they were putting forward many cases.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: 66.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his Department will undertake a further medical examination of Mr. Albert Killen, of 11, Earsdon Terrace, South Shields, with a view to his now being granted a disability pension?

Major TRYON: As I have explained to my hon. Friend in correspondence, this case has several times been the subject of most careful review both by myself and by my predecessor, and on no occasion has any ground been discovered for questioning the correctness of the
decision given in 1921 by the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal, that Mr. Ellen's unfortunate condition is not the result of his war service. I regret, therefore, that the case is not one in which I can do anything further.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that no examination has been made on behalf of his Department since 1923, and that since that date an independent medical man has given the opinion that the man's disability is due to war service?

Major TRYON: The man's position was examined very carefully during the time of my predecessor, and very high medical advice was obtained, and I have myself gone into the matter again, but the decision of the Tribunal is final, and I regret to say that it must stand.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Will my right hon. Friend answer the first supplementary question whether he is aware that this man has not in fact been examined by his Department or the officers of his Department since 1923, and that the examinations to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred are only examinations on the old papers?

Major TRYON: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in this subject. He has communicated with me and I have dealt with it, and considered it, and given my answer to him. It is not a question of this man's health at the moment, but whether his disability is due to war service.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HEAVY VEHICLES (DAMAGE TO ROADS).

Sir J. LAMB: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is now able to state what is the result of the programme of tests as to the relative amount of damage done to roads by six-wheeled and four-wheeled vehicles?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut-.Colonel Headlam): Certain impact tests are now in progress on a specially designed four-wheeled vehicle. The extension of the tests to a wider range of loads and speeds and to six-wheeled vehicles will necessitate the design of further apparatus.

RAILWAY RETURNS.

Mr. TOUCHE: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any action has been taken to reduce the number of statistical and financial returns required to be made by railway companies, as suggested in the report of the Royal Commission on Transport?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes Sir. As a result of a review by my Department and the railway companies of the financial and statistical information furnished by the companies under various statutory requirements the returns were substantially modified as from 1st January, 1932, with a consequent material reduction in the work previously involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT, TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, DURHAM.

Mr. McKEAG: 70.
asked the Minister of Labour the numbers and cost of the staffs employed in connection with the administration of transitional payments in the county of Durham for the week immediately prior to the appointment of commissioners, and for the last convenient week since the appointment of commissioners?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): For the week ended 12th February, the number of persons employed to assist the Commissioners was 227, and the salary costs approximately £800. I am not in a position to give comparable figures for the period when the administration was in the hands of the county council.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (CRUISER CONSTRUCTION).

Dr. J. WILLIAMS: 72.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to lay down in replacement tonnage two cruisers of 7,000 tons and two cruisers of 5,000 tons each for completion before 31st December, 1936, or whether in the interests of disarmament and economy these ships, which might be built under the London Treaty of 1930, will not be built?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): While it would be undesirable to anticipate the presentation of the Naval Estimates to
Parliament, the hon. Member may rest assured that in their preparation the obligations both of disarmament and economy are being fully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING.

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: 71.
asked the Minister of Labour how the cost of living in England to-day, as against a pre-War period, compares with that in France, Germany, and Italy?

Mr. HUDSON: The available statistics on this subject are summarised regularly in the monthly issues of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" under the heading "Retail Prices Overseas." The latest figures will be found on page 74 of the current (February) issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

BBITISH WIVES.

Captain CAZALET: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state approximately how many British-born women married to foreigners will be affected by the recent order in regard to registration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No figures are available at present, and it will be a considerable time before they can be obtained from the records of registered aliens.

Captain CAZALET: How many women have so far availed themselves of the privilege under this new Order?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I require notice of that question.

GERMAN REFUGEES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 75.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will take into consideration some relaxation of the Aliens Act to afford refuge to the Marxists from Germany?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No cases such as the hon. Member appears to contemplate have arisen, but the general principle on which the Aliens Order is administered is that aliens are only allowed to come in for residence if their settlement here is consonant with the interests of this country, and I should not be prepared to depart from the principle that the interests of this country must predominate over other considerations.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our ancestors allowed the Huguenots to come into this country under similar circumstances without any damage to our country or our reputation? Will he be prepared to give an equally felicitous asylum to the persecuted victims of Nazi terrorism in Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TRAWLER "BRACONMOOR."

Mr. BURNETT: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further announcement to make with regard to the steam trawler "Braconmoor," which was fined £800, with loss of gear, for illegal fishing off the coast of Iceland on the 14th November last?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Yes, Sir. The documents relating to the court" proceedings in this case have recently been received and are undergoing careful scrutiny by the competent authorities. It has not yet been possible to decide whether the facts of the case are such as to warrant a protest being made to the Icelandic authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (ARMS TRAFFIC).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any settlement had yet been reached in the matter of the recent importation of arms into Austria?

Sir J. SIMON: The Italian Ambassador saw me yesterday about the arms recently sent from an Italian consignor to two Austrian factories, and informed me that the Italian Government for their part were prepared to agree that the arms in question, which were sent to Austria for the purpose of being reconditioned, should be sent back to Italy as soon as possible, after fulfilment of the contract for reconditioning. The Ambassador informed me that some of the arms have already been sent back to Italy. It is understood that the return of the remainder would be evidenced in due course by the customs certificates of the Austrian authorities. His Majesty's Government for their part hope that the
question could be considered closed by the general acceptance of this proposal.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to publish the statement that has been sent to the Austrian Government by the French?

Sir J. SIMON: There have been a number of communications. I could not give an answer in reply to a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there was any information he could give the House on the situation in Jehol, and the attitude of the Japanese Government towards the proceedings of the League of Nations in regard to the Sino-Japanese dispute; and whether he could also give the House any information as to the proposal for an embargo on arms exported to Japan or China?

Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I have no information to confirm the Press reports that fighting has begun in Jehol. Marshal Chang Hsueh-liang and the Chinese Minister of Finance have paid a visit to Jehol and the former has telegraphed to the Chinese Delegation at Geneva that he has categorical orders from the Central Government to resist. I am not aware of the nature of the instructions which have been sent to the Japanese Delegates at Geneva.
As regards the latter part, I would reply that the draft report prepared by the Committee of Nineteen is, I understand, coming before the Special Assembly of the League of Nations this afternoon and we must await the decision of the Assembly in regard to it and the attitude of the parties to the report when adopted. On the subject of embargoes on arms I may point out, in the language employed by President Hoover in a recent message to Congress, that "for one nation alone to engage in such prohibitions while other nations continue to supply arms is a futility." The matter therefore in its wider aspect involves international questions of complexity and difficulty, and I can make no further statement at present.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Government be prepared to enter into negotiations with the United States and other Governments on the subject of an embargo if war does break out, that is to say if the reports in the Press prove to be true?

Sir J. SIMON: I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that I informed the House on Wednesday last that His Majesty's Government have been in communication with and have had an exchange of views with certain Governments with a view to prohibiting the export of arms and munitions of war in connection with a South American matter. The message of President Hoover to which I have referred urged that legislation should be enacted by the United States Congress to enable the Executive in special cases to place the United States in line with other nations who may be willing to take action of this sort in the event of military conflict. But no such legislation has yet been passed. I must not anticipate the decision of the Government, but it appears to me that these matters must be considered internationally, and I should have thought that it was at Geneva that discussion would take place.

Mr. LANSBURY: The only point I wish to press on the right hon. Gentleman is that, either to-day or on an early day, he ought to state what is the mind of the British Government on this subject and whether we are now prepared to co-operate with President Hoover or his successor on this subject.

Sir J. SIMON: I think I have already shown that we have been very willing to discover from the United States what co-operation is possible. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is very important and that it is urgent, and, while I must claim time for us to consider it in all its bearings, it is quite right that a statement should be expected from the Government at an early date.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know as early as possible when I may put a question to him again on the subject?

Sir J. SIMON: I will.

Major NATHAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement
which he has just made to the House is to be interpreted as meaning that His Majesty's Government do not propose to take immediate steps to prevent the export from this country of munitions of war to, or for the use of Japan?

HON. MEMBERS: Or China.

Sir J. SIMON: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not find that the answers which I have just given are in the least obscure. In case he has not understood them, however, I will repeat a portion of them. It would appear to me that until the draft report has been considered by the Assembly of the League and until the nations represented in the Assembly of the League have expressed their view of the report, it would not only be premature but quite improper to make the sort of declaration for which the hon. and gallant Member asks.

Major NATHAN: In view of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of His Majesty's Government, in view of the operations of war begun in Jehol this morning, to take immediate steps to prevent the export from this country of munitions of war to, or for the use of Japan.

HON. MEMBERS: Why Japan?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has asked for leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of His Majesty's Government. in view of the operations of war begun in Jehol this morning, to take immediate steps to prevent the export from this country of munitions of war to, or for the use of Japan.
It does not seem to me, after the explanation which has been given, that this matter would come under Standing Order 10, and therefore I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member leave to move the Adjournment.

Major NATHAN: May I be allowed respectfully to make this submission to you, Sir? It appears from the statement made here by the Foreign Secretary that this is a matter of definite public
importance. The only point upon which, in my submission, any doubt can arise is as to whether it is urgent or not, and on that point I venture to make these two observations. In the first place, the question could not have been raised until to-day, because, until to-day, it would have been in the realm of hypothesis. No operations of war had begun in Jehol. The hypothesis has now become, and has only to-day become, a fact. In these circumstances, I submit that the matter could not have been raised until to-day. In the second place, as regards the urgency of the matter in the sense of whether or not it is so urgent that it cannot be allowed to stand over for a later Debate, I quote the words of the Foreign Secretary himself who, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, said categorically that he regarded the matter as urgent. I would further submit that when war is imminent or indeed begun in any part of the world the question of the policy which the British Government is to adopt in relation to it is, in itself, a matter or urgency. I venture respectfully, Sir, to make these submissions in the hope that you will see your way to modify the Ruling which you have just given.

Mr. SPEAKER: As far as I understand, the draft report is under consideration.

PUBLIC HOUSE IMPROVEMENT.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale by retail of exciseable liquor.
The Measure which I ask leave to bring in is a Measure to give licensing justices the power to grant certain special licensing facilities to specially well-conducted and suitable licensed houses. The Bill is a short one consisting of seven Clauses. Its first Clause defines the houses to which such licensing facilities may be given and the conditions under which the justices may give those facilities. The second Clause provides for an appeal against the decision of the justices if an applicant is aggrieved. The third Clause lays down the advantages of such, special licences.
The proposed new special licence in effect will combine in one licence all the various special licences which are now needed for entertainment, music, dancing and everything of that kind—except stage plays…with this proviso, that the licensing justices may at their discretion exclude dancing from the purview of such licences if they believe that the cause of morality demands it. Clause 4 safeguards and preserves the existing law with regard to the presence of children on licensed premises and provides that as at present children may not enter the bar of such premises. Clause 5 deals with the question of rebate on the licensing duty and provides that the cost of the comprehensive licence shall be no more than the cost of the individual licences issued at present and that the holder of such licence—which shall only be granted in special cases where the nature and conduct of the premises have shown that he deserves it—shall have in effect three licences for the cost of one. Clause 6 deals with compensation charge and Clause 7 is the Short Title.
The promoters of the Bill resent very much the attitude that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is something of dark and secret import to be discouraged by legislation and made as uncomfortable and unpleasant as possible. They protest against discrimination, both Budgetary and social, between the drinkers of hard and soft drinks. The believe that the drinkers of drinks containing alcohol have as much right to social comfort and conveniences as the drinkers of drinks containing what I may call the rival poisons of tannin and caffein. I am informed by members of the medical profession that these are poisons every whit as virulent as alcohol. Indeed the idea of the Bill is the promotion of temperance because the refusal of these facilities to licensed premises leaves the frequenters of such premises with nothing to do therein except to consume alcoholic beverages and, in consequence, I am informed on occasion they consume such beverages to excess. Anyone who has travelled abroad must have been struck with the conveniences and the good conduct of the Continental café where a man may take his family, listen to music, read the paper and indulge in games while consuming such refreshment, alcoholic or nonalcoholic, as may seem good to him. It
is with the idea of making a very small beginning towards the introduction of some such system in this country that this Bill is introduced.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Beaumont, Viscount Lymington, Lieut. - Colonel Windsor - Clive, Mr. Croom-Johnson, and Mr. Raikes.

PUBLIC HOUSE IMPROVEMENT BILL,

"to amend the law relating to the sale by retail of exciseable liquors," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Guinness; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Gunston.

Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Durham Corporation Bill, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed on condition that the proposals for the extension of the city are omitted from the Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill, Petition for leave to dispense with Standing Order 129, in the case of the Petition of Vernon Harrison Holt and others, against the Bill, the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
3. "That, in the case of the Mable-thorpe and Sutton Urban District Council Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT [GENERAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in respect of each year in the second fixed grant period—

(a) the amounts to be included in the General Exchequer Contribution for England, under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section eighty-six of the Local Government Act, 1929, and in the General Exchequer Contribution for Scotland under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section fifty-three of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, shall be respectively the sum of five million three hundred and fifty thousand pounds and the sum of eight hundred and fifty thousand pounds; and
(b) the amounts to be paid under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section eighty-seven of the Local Government Act, 1929, and under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section fifty-four of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, respectively, out of the Road Fund towards the contributions aforesaid shall be the same as were payable in respect of each year in the first fixed grant period."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shakespeare!

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Before the hon. Member proceeds, may I ask whether we may have a rather wide range of Debate, instead of being closely confined to the Financial Resolution which we are now about to discuss?

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in my power to allow a wider Debate than is permitted by the ordinary Rules of Procedure. I have gone very carefully into the effect of the Resolution with a view to making up my mind as clearly as I can the lines on which discussion should be permitted. I was under the impression that I was going to be asked a question on the point after the hon. Member had introduced the Resolution, and I think perhaps that would be a more convenient time for dealing with such a question.

4.3 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The Committee will remember that four years ago there was a long and fierce controversy on the Measure which ultimately became the
Local Government Act, 1929. There are a large number of Members who will recollect the great skill and patience with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), with the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), piloted that rather cumbrous vessel through the shoals and shallows of Parliamentary criticism until it reached the harbour of the Statute Book. To many hon. Members these are matters of tradition only; but to a large number they are matters of personal recollection.
The object of this Resolution is to enable that ship of 1929 to cruise again for a period of four years. We are seeking sanction in this Financial Resolution to introduce a Bill, and we seek sanction to determine the financial basis of that Bill in respect of two amounts. If Members will turn to the White Paper which was issued—Local Government (General Exchequer Contributions), Command Paper 4252—they will see that we are asking the Committee to determine two matters, first of all, what shall be the amount of the new money to be provided under Section 86 of the Local Government Act, and we are asking that amount to be fixed at £5,350,000 in respect of England and Wales; and, under Section 53 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, at £850,000 in respect of Scotland. That is the first matter for which we seek sanction.
The second point is to determine the variable element in the annual contribution from the Road Fund towards the General Exchequer Contribution, and the Committee will see that in the Resolution that amount is to be for the second grant period what it was for the first grant period, namely, £3,000,000.
Having said that, I have done my duty, but, in case the Committee would like to have more illumination in their gloom, I will give a short historical background which will make it clear to the Committee why we come at this period and ask for this amount of money. The Committee will remember that the Local Government Act, 1929, introduced very far-reaching and, indeed, revolutionary changes in the whole structure of local government. It recast the financial relationship between the Exchequer and the local authorities. That Act, roughly,
did three things. It deprived local authorities of a large amount of revenue through its derating provisions to the extent of £22,250,000. It changed the basis of grants; it stopped the percentage grants in respect of certain services, the assigned revenues and the grants made under the Agricultural Rates Acts; it discontinued a total amount of grants of £16,250,000, and it further provided what was called an amount of new money which was fixed at £5,000,000. These three items—the loss of rates, the loss of grants and the new money—made up what was called the General Exchequer Contribution, which was a consolidated block grant paid annually; and, moreover, that grant was fixed for what was called the first grant period, that was, for three years. The scheme operated as from 1st April, 1930, in England and Wales and from 16th May, 1930, in Scotland. The first grant period in respect of this General Exchequer Contribution was to last for three years, which will terminate on 31st March next. After that, on 1st April, we embark upon a second grant period to last four years, and thereafter each grant period will be five years. As we are commencing the second grant period on 1st April, we have to decide what should be the amount of the General Exchequer Contribution composed of the three items I have mentioned in respect of the second grant period.
The Committee will notice that the amount in respect of loss of rates and the amount in respect of loss of grants is a standard figure for all time, as long as the world remains. That is fixed according to the standard year 1928–1929, and the loss of grants and rates in that year is a matter of ascertained fact. That amounted to £38,580,000 of the total block grant during the first grant period. The total amount of the new money in the first period was £5,000,000 which, together with the loss of rates and grants made the sum of the General Exchequer Contribution equal to £43,580,000. Having got to that, we now have to decide how the General Exchequer Contribution in respect of the second grant period shall be determined, and the method of determination was laid down in the Local Government Act, 1929. It is there laid down that the General Exchequer Contribution in respect of a grant period must bear
a relation to the rate- and grant-borne expenditure of the penultimate year of the previous grant period. That means this: Obviously you have got to relate a General Exchequer Contribution to something, and the only thing to which you can relate it is the rate- and grant-borne expenditure of a past year, and, as you cannot get the figures for the last year of a grant period in time, the nearest practicable year is the penultimate year of the previous grant period. Rate and grant-borne expenditure means what it ought to mean—expenditure which is borne out of rates or falls to be borne out of the General Exchequer Contribution. All expenditure met by grants outside the General Exchequer Contribution —police and education, for example—does not come within that definition.
Having got the relationship between the General Exchequer Contribution and the expenditure in the penultimate year in the first grant period, Parliament laid down in the Act that there must always be a minimum proportion which is a little difficult to explain, but it is this: The relation of a General Exchequer Contribution to the rate- and grant-borne expenditure of the penultimate year must never be less than the proportion which the original General Exchequer Contribution bore to the rate- and grant-borne expenditure of the first year of the scheme. We have called for statistics from all the local authorities, and if I give some figures the Committee will see how this little sum works out for England and Wales. The General Exchequer Contribution for each year of the first period of the scheme, that is the years 1930–31 to 1932–3, was, as I have said, £43,580,000. The amount of expenditure borne on rates and grants of the first year of the scheme, 1930–31, was, £188,000,000. The equivalent amount for the penultimate year of the first grant period, that is, 1931–32, was, as the Committee will see in the White Paper, £189,500,000.
Now we are in a position to do a simple proportion sum. Calling the new General Exchequer Contribution "X," "X" is to £189,500,000 what £43,500,000 is to £188,000,000. Having done that proportion sum and deducted the fixed element in the grant corresponding to the loss on account of discontinued rates and grants, the Committee will see that the answer is the amount for which we are seeking Parliamentary sanction in the new Bill
or nearly so. The answer is £5,348,000 and we are asking for a round figure of £5,350,000. The equivalent amount of new money for Scotland will be £850,000; that is, £500 above the minimum figure. That is the amount of new money for the second grant period and the total Exchequer Contribution for the second grant period will therefore be the equivalent of the loss of rates and grant plus this new sum of money or £43,930,000 for England and Wales. I hope I have made that as clear as it can be.
During the discussion I have no doubt that hon. Members will take opposite views. Some will argue that this amount is too high in view of the financial stress of the country. There is an Amendment to that effect on the Paper. Others, on the other hand, representing depressed areas, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) will be tempted to argue that this amount of new money is too low. There was a famous Lord Chief Justice at the close of the last century who was asked his opinion as to how often a man who was a criminal and ought to have been hanged was acquitted and he replied, "No doubt it sometimes happens that a man who should be hanged is acquitted, but then, on the other hand, it sometimes happens that a man who is innocent gets hanged," and he added that on the average justice was done. Against the two contrary pressures from these two groups I think the Government are entitled to argue that in adhering to the minimum proportion laid down in the Local Government Act justice is done, and I have no doubt that each group of protagonists will be able to answer the other far more effectively than I can answer either.
Let me very shortly mention to the Committee the chief reasons which influenced the Government in coming to the decision to adhere to the minimum proportion laid down in the Act. I mentioned the fact that the Local Government Act carried out reforms of a revolutionary nature and that is not an exaggeration. Those reforms were only made possible as the result of long and anxious negotiations with local authorities and a long and fierce battle in this House and at every stage, naturally assurances were asked for and assurances were given, and the Act as a result was
a network of compromise and concession. One of the main safeguards that the local authorities sought was to the effect that there should always be this equilibrium between the General Exchequer contribution at the start of a grant period and the rate borne and grant borne expenditure of the penultimate year of the previous period. That was granted.
Moreover, the Committee will remember that after the lapse of 17 years the whole of the General Exchequer contribution is to be paid out according to a famous formula, which is roughly determined, by weighting population for given factors, where the need most lies. Only at the end of the 17 years will the whole of the General Exchequer contribution, whatever it may be then, be allocated according to the need of particular areas, but at the end of each future grant period within those 17 years less is allocated to loss of rates and grants and more according to the formula. For the first grant period only £15,000,000 of the £43,600,000 was allocated according to the formula; for the second grant period an identical amount of £15,000,000 will be so allocated; but thereafter more and more will be allocated according to the need and less and less according to the loss of rates and grants, until at the end of the 17 years, as I say, the whole of this vast consolidated block grant is given according to need.
The reforms embodied in that Act have not yet been carried out. They involve, as hon. Members know, the transference of powers from small authorities to county authorities and the reorganisation of local government areas. There is a sort of reconditioning going on the whole time within the counties to prevent overlapping of services and to promote efficiency, and if almost at the start of this 17 years period, when we are undertaking to help local authorities to re-organise their areas and services we break faith with them and at the end of three years reduce the General Exchequer contribution below the minimum proportion laid down in the Act, it is easy to see that the achievement of the ultimate object might be jeopardised. If that is an exaggeration, one can at least say that the whole structure of the Local Government Act
might well be strained. That is the first consideration.
The second consideration is this: As I have pointed out, during these first and second grant periods a sum of only £15,000,000 is allocated in respect of what is called the need determined by factors which weight the population. If all those factors remain constant in the second grant period, the money will go as it did during the first grant period. About 8 per cent, of the £15,000,000 went in respect of the unemployment factor. I dc not want to go into the formula again, but I can sum it up for those who do not remember it by saying that the need of any area is roughly determined by a combination of factors expressing population, rate-able value, the proportion of children under five, the local unemployment, and in county areas the sparsity of population per mile of road. Those five factors roughly govern the direction in which that £15,000,000 will flow. The chief factor that has changed since the scheme operated is, of course, the unemployment factor.

Mr. G. HALL: And population.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Population certainly, and children under five, but the main change is in the increased unemployment, and it will mean that for the second grant period, instead of that factor's attracting 8 per cent, of the £15,000,000, 20 per cent. of the £15,000,000 will go to those areas where unemployment is more severe than it was before. That being so, if we are to reduce the amount of this new money, £5,350,000, it is obvious that a relatively more severe reduction will take place in those areas whose financial circumstances are strained by virtue of unemployment, and more prosperous areas with little or no unemployment where there has been no change of population,, will receive very little reduction in their allocation of this new money. For those two reasons, because we did not wish to break faith with the local authorities at the start of this wide embracing scheme, and because a reduction in the amount would hit hardest those areas where unemployment is worst, the Government have decided to adhere to the minimum proportion.
My right hon. Friend promised in this House some months ago that he would
inquire into the operation of this formula to see whether in fact the various factors were operating wisely. That inquiry is still being conducted, and anything we do under this Resolution and the Bill which is based upon it is without prejudice to any recommendation made or adopted as a result of that inquiry. I ought to make that perfectly plain. As far as this Resolution and the Bill which it helps to promote are concerned, the factors in the formula are unchanged, except, as I say, that the accentuation of any one factor naturally means that more money will flow in that direction. I think I have exhausted my task. I am sorry to have let loose all those figures, but I thought an explanation of the complications of this Local Government Act might enable us to judge and might promote discussion.
There is only one other point that I want to mention. The Committee will see that in the Resolution, under (b), authorisation is sought for an annual contribution from the Road Fund under Section 87 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act as regards England and Wales and under Section 54 (1) (b) of the Scottish Act as regards Scotland. The amount for the first grant period was £3,000,000, and the amount for the second grant period for which we are seeking authorisation is £3,000,000 also. That sum will be allocated as between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other according to the famous Goschen formula, that is, eighty ninety-firsts go to England and Wales and eleven ninety-firsts go to Scotland and the total contribution from the Road Fund remains for the second period what it was for the first period, namely, £3,000,000. I hope that the Committee will by passing this Resolution, enable the ship of the Local Government Act to put to sea for the second grant period of four years.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: May I now put the question which my hon. Friend asked as to the scope of the Debate?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): It is not my desire in any way to limit the Committee's opportunities for Debate, but perhaps I may be of assistance if I point out that the purpose of the Money Resolution and the Bill upon which it is based is the single
purpose of fixing an amount; and the manner in which that amount is to be fixed is determined by the Act of 1929 and is not raised by this Resolution.

4.33 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: The point has, in my view, been quite correctly stated by the right hon. Gentleman. If I give an indication generally now of what would or would not be in order in the discussion of this Resolution, the Committee must take it as being nothing more than a general indication and not a Ruling which can be considered to be binding upon the Chair in regard to any points which may crop up in the course of the Debate. The Committee will notice that the Resolution is one to make certain financial provision which has to be made in pursuance of Sections 86 and 87 of the Local Government Act of 1929 and of the corresponding Sections of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929. It is a Financial Resolution upon which a Bill is to be founded, and the Bill to be founded upon it must be confined within the limits of the Resolution to which the Bang's Recommendation has been signified. This will indicate to the Committee the limits within which the Debate on the Resolution must be confined, but I think, if I may put it in other words, that Debate will be in order on any question which can be raised on the particular Sections of the two Acts referred to, but it will not be in order to discuss matters which would involve legislation altering any statutory enactments outside those particular Sections. Therefore, it is clearly in order to argue that more or less money should be provided than is proposed in the Resolution; but it will not be in order to discuss proposals for altering the method in which that lump sum of money shall be distributed. That method of distribution is fixed by statutory enactment, the alteration of which is not a matter which is now before the Committee.

Mr. THORNE: I take it that one would be entitled to criticise the Government for their action in pinching money from the Road Fund?

The CHAIRMAN: I think not; that is done beyond recall.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Parliamentary Secretary, as a justification for the line which the Government have taken,
argued about the formula. I do not wish to argue about the formula; I have done it before on many occasions; but it would be in order, I presume, for hon. Members to deal with the points which the Parliamentary Secretary raised in this speech if they did not transgress beyond the normal bounds of Debate?

Sir H. YOUNG: With a desire to assist the Committee, I should point out that under your Ruling the nature of the formula—in other words, the basis upon which this amount is calculated—is not raised by the Sections to which you have referred. The Parliamentary Secretary naturally had to refer to many historical matters to make the Resolution clear.

The CHAIRMAN: I followed the Parliamentary Secretary's speech very carefully, and I do not think that anything that he said went beyond the limits which I can permit in this Debate. References to the formula, no doubt, will be necessary in considering the question generally as to the grant of a particular lump sum, but it will follow quite clearly from what I have said already that any suggestions for altering that formula or in any way interfering with the statutory enactments under which the money has to be distributed, would be out of order on this Resolution.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Would it be in order in discussing this question to raise the desirability of the extension or the curtailment of the services on which this money is spent, some of which are governed by Statute?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's last words make it easy for me to answer. If they are governed by Statute, they are statutory enactments which are not before the Committee, and we certainly cannot discuss their alteration.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I gather that it will be possible to discuss the extension or reduction of those parts of the expenditure which are not governed by Statute?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure what the hon. Member has in mind, and I think that that point had better be left to be dealt with when it arises.

Mr. PRICE: Would it be in order to raise the issue mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary? He stated that a committee was dealing with the question of readjustment, and that this Resolution,
if passed, would provide money without prejudice that would be administered in accordance with the report of that committee. Therefore, would it be in order to criticise some of the anomalies that exist in administration so far as the formula is concerned?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I do not recall the particular passage in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Sir H. YOUNG: The point taken by the Parliamentary Secretary was that this Measure deals with the total amount of money to be voted, but does not deal with or raise in any way the distribution of that money among individual authorities.

The CHAIRMAN: That is the very point with which I dealt in my Ruling, the effect of which is that the hon. Member cannot raise that question of the distribution of the lump sum.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall try to keep my remarks within the bounds of Debate. Many of us in the Committee will remember the long struggles of 1928 and 1929 on this question. I am only too sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary was suffering then from a temporary absence from the House and did not take part in the Debates. Otherwise, his conscience would have pricked him in regard to some of the things he said about the Local Government Act. I fancy that some of his old colleagues will not agree with the favourable attitude he takes to this legislation. I am sure that had he been in the House when the Act was being discussed, he would have followed me into the Lobby on the large number of occasions when there were Divisions. The Parliamentary Secretary desired, as he said, to relieve the doubt and the gloom in the Committee. Doubt and gloom in the Committee is becoming its permanent condition now. After the speech we had last Thursday, I am not surprised that there should be doubt and gloom, and I am not certain that the hon. Gentleman has really removed them. He explained what this general Exchequer contribution is about. I am afraid that it is rather like the formula; it is unintelligible except to the fortunate people who took the trouble to go into it when the Bill was before the House.
We are faced now with a Resolution which is automatic in its character. It must be passed this year because the first grant period has now come to an end. For all time two of the elements in the general Exchequer contribution are fixed. One of the elements is the amount due to derating, which I strongly suspect was foisted upon an unwilling Minister of Health by a very greedy Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the second part is that dealing with the suspension of the percentage grants which had become a growing and ever-present problem with Members of the Conservative party. It was devised as a means of curbing the excessive zeal of certain local authorities. Being fixed for all time, it makes the continuance of this general Exchequer contribution more and more inequitable as time passes.
I am arguing this on the point of the extension of the £5,000,000 alterable grants. As time goes by, and as the rateable value of industrial and transport hereditaments increases, local authorities will be able to claim only one quarter of that. If the National Government's policy in regard to agriculture is so successful that there is a revival of this fundamental industry, then the local authorities, because of the complete derating of agricultural land and buildings, will not get a penny. Since this scheme started, they have been robbed of the gradually increasing rateable values of hereditaments which used to be rated in the same way as household premises, shops and warehouses still are to-day. The percentage grant for health services was devised deliberately to check this growing expenditure of the State arising out of the expansion of the social services. A block grant battening down the activities of local authorities makes the possibilities of expansion difficult for them as time goes on. The figures of percentage grant expenditure in 1928–29 are no measure of the size that these social services would have assumed to-day had the percentage grant system continued. Therefore, the local authorities are being penalised on that amount alone, because those two sums are fixed as long as the world remains.
The third point described by the Parliamentary Secretary concerned the variable sums originally fixed at £5,000,000. As I understand it, that £5,000,000 was a grant to provide during
the first fixed grant period of three years something which would not completely damp down the normal expansion of those services which previously had received the percentage grant year by year instead of the block grant fixed for three years and now to be fixed for four years. We, and I believe the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), argued at the time that that sum was inadequate, that it would not represent the additional revenue which the local authorities would have received by the normal expansion of those services had the percentage grants still continued. Those social services are fundamental to the nation—maternity and welfare services, tuberculosis treatment and the rest. Those services, all included in the block grant, have not yet reached 75 per cent, of their development, let alone 100 per cent.; we are a long, long way behind.
The view which those of us who sit on these benches take was a view with which the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) did not agree. He has taken a rather different line on this question of grants, one which is not, I believe, quite in accordance with the views of his party. The view we took was that until those services had been so developed that they were fulfilling completely the purpose for which they were started, the percentage grant system was the best way of encouraging their development. They get their £5,000,000. I am satisfied that but for the allocation of a definite sum—the additional sums will fall wholly on the rates, and, believe me, local authorities are in as desperate financial circumstances as is the Exchequer—those services would have been more highly developed.
Another point I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee is that when this Bill was originally introduced the fixed grant period was not three years but five years. There was to be the quinquennial review. Under pressure from the House, some of it from the Government benches as well as from the Opposition benches, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Minister of Health, agreed to make the first period a shorter period of three years, the second one four years, and then, after seven years, would come the quinquennial reviews. The result of having a three years' period is this, under this mystic formula set out in the White Paper. The first year and
the last year, on which the difference is calculated, are only one year apart; they were, in fact, succeeding years. For 1930–31 rate and grant-borne expenditure was £188,000,000, and for 1931–32, £189,500,000. If this had been a four years' period the rate and grant-borne expenditure would have been determined in 1932–33, had it been a five years' period it would have been determined in 1933–34. The lapse of time would have been larger and the increase in the amount of rate and grant-borne expenditure would have-been much larger, and that would have altered the answer of the proportion sum which the Parliamentary Secretary asked us to solve.
The formula, therefore, is working extraordinarily badly. It is a very cunningly devised formula. It is making permanent for all time the loss due to rates, the loss due to discontinuance of the percentage grant. In this short period of time during which the scheme has been in operation the factors are weighted against the local authorities. If hon. Members will look up the Act they will see that this formula is prescribed as a minimum. Never at any time, I think, during the long Debates on this question was it said that that minimum would be a maximum; indeed, there were hints to the contrary, though, of course, no pledges were given. Now we find that under the formula, which must operate unless the law is altered, a certain sum must be provided. The sum provided for England and Wales is £2,000 a year more than the legal minimum, not through any desire to encourage local authorities, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary explained, to get a good round figure. Scotland will rejoice in an increase of £500 per year over the absolute minimum. In effect, the Government are doing the least that is possible under the Local Government Act, 1929, notwithstanding the circumstances in which the local authorities find themselves.
This is part and parcel of the Government's economic policy, part and parcel of a policy of thrusting burdens from the Exchequer on to the backs of local authorities. This is not the only illustration we have had. Instead of encouraging local authorities to proceed with services which I believe to be vital to the health and well-being of the people, they are being discouraged. It is per-
fectly true that the Minister has again "nobbled" the associations of local authorities, but it was easy to do that, because he had "doped" them 15 months ago. They are panic stricken, and are falling in with his views; but local administrators know that the operation of this scheme will postpone indefinitely many developments of health and allied services which are desirable and, indeed, essential. This Financial Resolution stabilises for the next four years, unless the law is altered, the assistance which is to be given to local authorities in respect of the services with which the Local Government Act, 1929, dealt, based upon a figure which had not had a chance to develop because there was an interval of only one year for the calculation, and it was a time of very considerable economic difficulty.
If it were true that this increased figure—an increase of £350,000, on the top of £5,000,000, to be spread amongst all the county boroughs and county councils—were adequate to meet the growing services of the local authorities during the first year of the next grant period it would be hopelessly inadequate in the last year of the period. The position of the local authorities is not an easy one; some of them are slowly becoming bankrupt. The difficulty they have in balancing their budgets is as great as the difficulty the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have in balancing his next Budget. Heavier burdens have been cast upon them during the last 16 months. Today Liverpool, Sheffield and Birmingham are groaning under the burden of Poor Law relief, a burden cast upon them by the Government, and when they might have had something more than this miserable addition of £350,000 they are to be denied it. This £350,000 is not a gift to the local authorities. It is the law of the land that they should have it, and they have earned it, but they are to have no encouragement beyond that execpt this microscopic sum of £2,000 a year.
When we consider the effect of the actual working of the formula, I am afraid the situation becomes even more grave for the local authorities. I do not want to argue it in detail, but the effect of the formula is going to be, shall we say, that for some areas there will be more money because the unemployment factor
is larger, but, if that be so, the money will be coming from some other districts, because the sum is fixed. It will come from great centres like London, and the Metropolitan Boroughs in the East End of London will be penalised in order that a little more money, though not an adequate sum, shall go to distressed areas in other parts of the country. The contribution made in respect of roads remains the same, that is, it is determined by a consideration of what was spent in, I think, 1928–29. Four years, or nearly five years, have elapsed since then. Impoverished local authorities have had perforce to economise on the maintenance of their Class I and Class II roads, and in the counties on their unclassified roads. The state of many of those roads —I am not talking of the new roads to which special grants have been given— has grown steadily worse. I might remind the Committee that this sum is not determined by a formula, but is such sum as the Minister can squeeze out of the Treasury. After this period the sum which was thought right by reason of the expenditure in 1928–29 is to be re-established again for each of the next four years. In my view that sum is inadequate. The Parliamentary Secretary said there were those who thought the amount too high, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and his friends being among them. Some of us who sit on these benches think it is too low.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: And others think it is quite right.

Mr. GREENWOOD: On the basis, no doubt, of the story told by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Judge who thought that if innocent men are sometimes hanged while scoundrels get off that, on the whole, that is rough justice. I should call it very rough justice. Perhaps I may tell a story which has just come into my mind. Some workpeople went to a house to do some internal repairs and decorations, and the foreman was told that they could help themselves to the beer in the cellar. In the evening when he returned he asked the foreman how he liked it. The foreman said that it was just right. The occupier of the house said: "What do you mean?" The foreman replied: "Well, if it had been any better you would not have given it to us, and if it
had been any worse we could not have drunk it. So that it was just right." I believe that that is more appropriate than the story told by the Parliamentary Secretary. "Just right" means that it is not good enough but is not absolutely poisonous. That is the most that can be claimed for it. The Parliamentary Secretary attempted to justify the minimum amount which he is giving. In my opinion he did not justify it. The arguments were against the Government breaking the law and giving Jess than the minimum. They were against the hon. Member for South Croydon; they were not arguments against me.
The first of the arguments was that if we were to break faith with local authorities that would be a very bad thing. I would be the last person to suggest that you should break faith in that way. Indeed, it would be impossible to break faith with them without special legislation. I do not want an answer to the question why the Government have carried out the law, because I assume that Governments will carry out the law. I do not ask why they have carried out the law, and the minimum at that, but why they have not done better. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the question of the finances of the country. I would ask him to look at—I think it is—the Second Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1929, which sets out the services in respect of which percentage grants are being discontinued. They are maternity and child-welfare services, with minor exceptions; the treatment of venereal disease, the treatment of tuberculosis, and the treatment of mental defectives. These deal with fundamental social problems. We all know that there is hardly a town in the country—I think I can say that there is not a town—where maternity and child-welfare services are as highly developed as, in the national interests, they ought to be. That applies certainly to the treatment of tuberculous people. We have not yet done for tuberculous people as much as we ought to have done in the interests of the nation.
I come back to the point that I made on a previous day, which is that during a time of exceptional and long-continued difficulty, money matters less than men. Nobody believes, least of all after the strictures of last Thursday, that there
is to be an early lightening of the clouds. We are now looking forward to a period of very considerable difficulty. Whether we come through that storm does not depend upon how much you have saved for the Exchequer—

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Oh, does it not?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am putting this very simple point, which was true from 1914 to 1918, that men matter more than material and more than money, and that during these times, instead of taking action which discourages local authorities from developing social services which would improve the quality of the men—

Mr. BEAUMONT: Keep them out of employment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is quite irrelevant. I am trying to put the simple point that during times of national difficulty men matter more than money. That is a fact which cannot be disputed. Perhaps the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) will disagree with this, that, so long as there is unnecessary luxury, those vital services which go to men-making and women-making in this country ought not to be crippled, as they are being crippled to-day. That is the simple case which is argued by us on broad public grounds. Our indictment of the Government respecting this Financial Resolution is because of their meanness. They have now penalised for 16 months the local authorities; they have held a bludgeon over local authorities for 18 months, and there is another bludgeon still over their heads in the shape of the Ray Report. The Government have bludgeoned the local authorities at a time when, whatever may be said about certain national services, local government services ought to be pressed forward because of their enormous permanent value to the nation during the coming hard years.
It would have been a mere gesture of generosity on their part, and an encouragement to the local authorities, if the Government had done something above the minimum. They have done nothing above the minimum, except £2,000, and even that sum is not offered as a sop. The local authorities have been insulted by being told that that sum is offered in order to get a round figure. I am sorry that the Government have not yet seen the light upon this. I have
no doubt that their supporters will press them even further in the direction of economy. I hope that those hon. Members will have the courage to vote for their views. If they do so, let me say this: they are digging their own graves.

Mr. THORNE: And digging them deep, too.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not only that, but they are helping to dig the grave of the nation, for, believe me, in these days the most important asset that our nation has is represented by the social services which mean so much in the life of the working class. Those services are a big contribution to their well-being. I cannot pretend to hope that the Committee will go into the Lobby against this Resolution, but so far as we are concerned we express our strongest hostility to it and our contempt for its meanness, and we express also our hope that soon this Government will pass away and will give place to another with a better sense of human values.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: ; Listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) took me back to those days when we were fighting together for the provisions of the Act under which this Resolution arises. The only difference is that he has not by his side Miss Susan Lawrence and that I have not by my side the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). One has gone out and the other has gone up. The Minister for Mines, if he were with me now, could use some of the language he used in those days when we had the most eloquent presentment of the inadequacy of these proposals that it would be possible to find anywhere.
I have a certain embarrassment in dealing with the case so admirably presented by the Parliamentary Secretary, because I know that my real objection lies against his first sentence. He said: "Give us assistance in guiding this ship safely into harbour." What I want to do with this ship is to scrap it and to build a new and a better one. Quite properly, that ambition cannot come within the confines of this discussion. We are in the ship, and we have to do what we can with it. It is of no use to imagine that we can rebuild it more in accordance with our heart's desire. I must repeat, follow-
ing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield, that the vices that are shown here in the inadequacy of this Resolution, are vices which are really inherent in the Act itself. It is an Act which inevitably operates in the closing down of essential services, and it is not surprising that, when all the formulas which were so ingeniously devised, and which I think must have come from the cunning brain of the present Postmaster-General, have been worked out, they yield a very unsatisfactory result.
When one has read this very ingenious White Paper, so far as one can make sense of it, one finds that this Committee is only discussing the sum of £2,500. That is what it comes to. There are a lot of figures and a lot of verbiage. It is no good the Financial Secretary or the Parliamentary Secretary or anybody else taking credit for not breaking the law. So much the Government were bound to do. It is giving now £2,000 to England and Wales and £500 to Scotland. What generosity. What largesse and expansive-ness. The Government must have been reading a letter from Professor Pigou in the "Times" newspaper to-day, and they realise that the time for contraction of expenditure has gone by and that now we must expand. So, here is £500 for Scotland—an "awfu' heap of siller." We must make the most of it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield was saying, I think quite correctly, that the Government were doing as little as it possibly could under these formulas. Instead of that observation being greeted with indignant denial, it was greeted with applause from the Benches of the Government's supporters. They were glad that the Government were doing as little as possible. So far from wanting their own Act, supported in such flowery language as "the foundation of the nation's prosperity," worked for all it is worth, they want to work it as little as possible. When that spirit is shown on the back benches, I suppose it is idle to expect that Ministers, who are in even closer contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are going to show a more generous mood. Therefore one cannot hope for very much.
It is rather difficult to gather from a mere perusal of this White Paper what the ultimate policy of the Government is intended to be. The White Paper con-
tains one example of an even more ancient formula than the one in the Act. I find a sum worked out as follows: First you have to take the rate and grant-borne expenditure for 1931 and 1932, and then you have to divide it by the rate and grant-borne expenditure for 1930 and 1931. You have to multiply the result by the General Exchequer Contribution of the first fixed-grant period. Then, actually in terms, you have to take away the number you first thought of, because the White Paper says: "Deduct total of losses on account of rates and grants," which is the very first figure which is given here. This remarkable result leaves one in the end with only £348,000, which the Government have generously increased to £350,000. That is a most lamentable result. As has been pointed out, the strictly compensatory part of the grant, which is fixed, the Parliamentary Secretays says, for all time, was regarded even by the supporters of this Act, when it was first operated, as being too rigid and having too little elasticity. There must be some elasticity somewhere. I think that the sum was arranged to be £6,000,000 for the first fixed-grant period and thereafter was expressly made elastic. You have that minimum, but you have no maximum. It was anticipated that, as the population grew and as circumstances altered, there would be growing demands.
The Government at that time had, I imagine, no reason to look forward to such hard times as those which we are passing through. They could not have had present to their imaginations the conditions under which great cities like Liverpool, and great county boroughs like Middlesbrough, are labouring at the present time. Now that the test has come, now that the occasion which was envisaged is here, the Government will make practically no increase at all. That seems to me to be an example of the whole spirit in which they are tackling the situation. I want to record my hearty protest against the niggardly spirit which is shown in this Resolution. I do not suppose that, as a matter of voting against the Resolution, the votes on either these benches or the benches opposite will really matter. We are being given something, and nobody wants these grants to stop altogether. But I think we are entitled to say that, while we have listened with interest to
the delightfully clear and lucid statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, from its very lucidity it is quite evident that the Government are even ready to plume themselves on fulfilling no more than the very letter of their bond which was actually demanded from them by the law, and that for any kind of imagination in regard to meeting the needs of the time it is quite hopeless in this, and, I am afraid, in other matters, to look to them.

5.18 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K Griffith) is confusing in this matter two different questions. We are not now considering capital expansion; we are considering an annual Revenue charge; and, after all, the hon. Member and I, whatever may have been our subsequent differences, were quite certain 18 months ago about asking the country for full powers to balance the Budget. Even after the unfortunate differences of opinion which have intervened between us, I should have thought that he might still have taken that fact into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) made a very curious speech. The one argument which was required to make it effective was to demonstrate that this £5,000,000 of new money which was given to local authorities in 1930 had now been exhausted. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that that was new money in relief of rates, to be available for expansion of services. He did not say a word in his speech to the effect that the local authorities had exhausted that new money, and, therefore, could not go in for any further expansion of services; and, in the absence of any such statement, the whole of his argument fell to the ground.
My reason for rising is to point out that this Motion puts the Committee in a very serious difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield reminded me that I was inclined to take a view of block grants which perhaps was in advance of—or in retrogression from—that of my party. My main reason for believing in the system of block grants is that, under a system of percentage grants, the House of Commons cannot, in practice, exercise any control over the
taxation which it levies on the taxpayer. That view may be right or it may be wrong, but it is my view. We are being asked here—I do not say that it is the fault of the Government; it may be the fault of the Act—two months before the Budget, to commit ourselves to an expenditure for the next three years with no sort of knowledge of what the outturn of the present financial year will be, or what will be the nature of the Estimates to be laid before us in the Budget. Is it possible that the House of Commons should be able to stand before the country and say that it is exercising control over the nation's finances when, two months before the introduction of the Budget, we predetermine the amount of expenditure as regards a very substantial part of that Budget? That seems to me to be a piece of procedure which reduces the financial control of the House of Commons to ridicule. I regret very much that the Government, acting under the scheme worked out in 1929, have decided to run along these predestined tram-lines in 1933, and to follow precisely this procedure. After all, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, in 1929 we did not anticipate any crisis of this kind, and surely, if there is one thing that is essential at the present day, it is that, in facing the very grave financial position of the future, both national and local, we should keep in our own hands our powers to direct financial policy, instead of committing ourselves in advance in the way that we are at the present time.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I rise to suggest very seriously that this resolution is a further attack on the development of our local services, and I am sure that the local authorities of the country, when they read this Debate to-morrow morning, will be disappointed. When the old percentage grants were replaced by these block grants, the position of the Government was such, that they could have brought in a resolution for more money than this to meet the normal developments which have taken place since the Act was passed. The suggestion of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is that the money implicated in the Bill of 1929 was new money for the local authorities for development purposes, but it did not work out in that
way. It did not represent new money, but only the replacement of money which the local authorities had lost, owing to de-rating on the one hand, and the reversal of grants to local authorities for local purposes on the other. In 1928, in many mining areas, whose rateable value is largely ascertained on the basis of colliery output, new collieries were being sunk, which then had no potential output, and the result was that, on the readjustment of the grants, the rates in many of these districts were increased.
I have in mind a colliery town in my own constituency which, owing to the operation of the formula in the way that it did, had no spending capacity in 1928. The colliery output there did not commence until 1929. Then came the Derating Act, which reduced the rates of the colliery by 75 per cent. Nevertheless, although the local authority in that district had very little spending capacity before the colliery was sunk, they have had to develop a new mining district, with housing, drainage, schools, sanitation, child welfare, and so on, with the result that their rates are now nearly 20s. in the £. We are now negotiating with the Minister regarding a water scheme for this newly developed mining district, where the rates are so high as a consequence of the administration of the formula, and we are now in the difficulty that the Minister says that this water scheme will be so expensive that he cannot at the moment approve of it. At the moment we have not a proper clean water supply in that area.

Sir H. YOUNG: May I ask the hon. Member, for my own information, whether he is referring to a scheme to be financed with loan capital, or out of revenue?

Mr. PRICE: With loan capital. We say that the alteration proposed in the percentage grants as regards population and unemployment is not sufficient to meet the necessities of our distressed mining areas. Since the Act was passed, there have been great changes in the district, and, although the percentage has been increased as far as unemployment is concerned, it will still leave thousands of men dependent on the Poor Law, which is a direct charge on the local authority. We say that there was any amount of room for seeing the difficulties that have arisen in the adminis-
tration of block grants, and that, in fairness to local authorities, the formula ought to have been readjusted. I should like to ask the Minister a question. The mining district to which I have referred, which had no rateable value from the colliery until after the Act started to operate, and of which the expenditure in the year 1928–29, when the colliery was being sunk, was very small, now has a tremendously increased special rate, on which it gets no grant, while it gets only 25 per cent, of the rates from the colliery. I should like to know whether it is in the mind of the Minister to make any adjustment in the case of districts that are in this position?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that is a matter which cannot be discussed now. It would involve an alteration in the formula.

Mr. PRICE: The only thing that I want to suggest is that the £2,500 for which, as a matter of absolute necessity, the Government were bound to make provision, will not help this district very much, and I was wondering whether there was any hope of the formula being altered to meet that situation. We on these benches say definitely that, at a time like this, when the local public services are so important, it behoved the Government, and we claim that they could have afforded it, to bring in a more generous Resolution than this to help developments in some of these districts, and to take away from the local ratepayers some of the burden which they are now bearing in connection with unemployment. We say that unemployment ought to be a national burden. In this Resolution, however, no provision is made for progress in any of these directions. The Government are carrying out what has been their policy ever since they took office, namely, to browbeat the local authorities and stop social progress; and apparently it is not their intention even now, in face of the fact that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, for 10 years unemployment is to be with us, to make that unemployment a national responsibility. This Resolution is a fair indication that they are going to continue their past policy of placing the responsibility for dealing with unemployment to a large extent on the local ratepayers. It is on these grounds that we criticise the Resolution. Although, as
has already been said, we know that it is bound to be passed, and we could not support the Amendment, which suggests a reduction, nevertheless we think that the Government are not carrying out their duty and obligation in bringing a Resolution of this type before the House.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The point of view that I wish to express is entirely divorced from that which we have heard from the hon. Member opposite and from the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). I put down an Amendment which is out of order. It would have been in order if I had proposed a reduction of £1,000, but it is out of order to propose a reduction of £5,000, because that is in conflict with the provisions of the 1929 Act. But that is no reason why I should not express the views that I should have expressed if I had been able to move my Amendment. I think local government is grossly extravagant at the present time. I think this country is so over-taxed that until we reduce the burden we shall not restore large numbers of people to employment. That is the fundamental stand that I take. The hon. Member opposite wants to improve the social services. The hon. Member behind him wants to relieve the unemployed. I want to see the unemployed put back into normal employment, and my whole purpose is to support a policy of economy, because I believe that by economy alone in existing circumstances are you going to bring about a large reduction in unemployment. The importance of economy is not merely that it is a transfer of expenditure. It will mean a complete change in the psychological outlook of every person engaged in business.
People speak as if there had been a serious attempt at economy. The last Parliament, of which I was not a Member, in its last few days passed an Economy Act which had some effect on local government. The economies were not very large. They have always been overstated, because there was included among them the increased contributions in connection with unemployment insurance, which are really an additional form of taxation. The economies have been roughly £60,000,000, and the new taxes £90,000,000. We are to-day suffering from an increase of unemploy-
ment because of the new burdens imposed upon the people on top of the existing burdens, which were already much too heavy. The only remedy that we have not tried for dealing with unemployment is economy. We have tried extravagance, and the result was complete failure. It might be worth while to try economy. The increase in the cost of local government in recent years is frankly appalling. In pre-War days in Great Britain the cost of local government borne on rates and grants was £105,000,000 taking the nearest round figure, and in the year ending 31st March last it was £319,000,000. They did not have to fight a war as such. They had no War Debt and no War pensions to pay, but there has been that gigantic increase. The cost is three times as great, although there has been no corresponding advance in the cost of living and, if every allowance is made for the increase in population, there has been a gigantic increase in the burden.
That increase has been growing in recent years. In 1922–23 it was just under £261,000,000. In 1928–29, the last year before the Local Government Act commenced to operate, it had grown to £294,000,000, and last year to £319,000,000. The figure for the present year we do not know, but I imagine it will show some reduction as the result of some of the economies that have been imposed. The increase in the last 10 years has been 22 per cent, and since 1928–29 8 per cent. During that period everything has been becoming cheaper. The retail index cost-of-living figure and the Board of Trade wholesale index figure, which is a fairer measure of much of the expenditure of local authorities than the retail price index number, both show a heavy drop The real change in the value of money from their point of view is a compromise between the wholesale and retail price figures. In the last 10 years there has been a drop of 30 per cent, in the index number and, in the last four years, of 21 per cent. If you apply the change in the value of money as well as the increase in the cost of local government expenditure, local authorities are spending to-day in real values 75 per cent, more than they were spending 10 years ago. People cannot afford to go on spending these large sums. Innumerable trades are
slack and idle because the ordinary person is unable to continue his normal habit of living. The nation is overburdened largely because of this extravagance, which to an abnormal extent is financed by the central authorities.
The amount of rates raised has roughly doubled as compared with pre-War. The amount of the Parliamentary grant has increased six times. The point that we are now discussing is the unallocated grant. It is used for several purposes. It relieves the burden which would otherwise fall on the ratepayers in respect of all the other services. It is a general grant-in-aid for all purposes. I think it is much too large. I should like to see it cut. We are not voting £5,300,000, but some £43,000,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Certainly we are. We are in effect voting £43,928,000 so far as England and Wales are concerned. That is the sum that we are really discussing. That is the sum that is going to be distributed under the formula. We are actually determining how much we are to add to the discontinued grant. We are actually spending that large sum, and I should be very glad to see it reduced, not by £5,000, but by something in the neighbourhood of £5,000,000, and under the condition that it was not followed by an increase but by a decrease in rates collected. The truth of the matter is that local government is becoming very extravagant indeed. There is a rise under every conceivable head. It is rather interesting to compare an analysis which I have taken partly from the statistical abstract and partly from the Thirteenth Annual Report of the Ministry of Health. I find that, when you have left out education, the health services and all the general specified services, there is left as "other overhead charges not specifically allotted," in 1913–14, £4,974,000. In 1929–30 it had grown to £20,004,000.
I see no reason why, when you have defrayed your health services, your education, highways, public lighting and police, the general overheads are four times as great as they were pre-war. It is due to the fact that there has grown up a general system of extravagance in local government. I do not know whether people realise that the main extravagance in government to-day is not national but local government. If you analyse our Budget and deduct from our present expenditure that part which represents
War Debt, War pensions and these increased grants to local authorities, what is left shows a relatively small percentage increase if you take every fact into account. The greatest item of general extravagance in our national accounts is this enormous increase in giants to local authorities from £25,000,000 to £154,000,000 last year. I take the view that somehow we have to take steps to reduce it. It is a little difficult for anyone to make an estimate of the income of all the people in the nation, but estimates are made with a considerable degree of accuracy and, on the basis of those estimates, I calculate that in the year before the Local Government Act came into operation about 7 per cent. of the aggregate income of all the people in the land was being spent by the local authorities either through the rates or through Parliamentary grants. Seven per cent. of the national income is being spent by the local authorities. Partly as the result of the increase in expenditure and partly because the general level in prices has reduced the nominal values of the income of the nation, we are now spending over 10 per cent. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in the burden of local government expenditure in the last four years in relation to our capacity to bear it. It is an intolerable increase, and unless it is checked we shall come to disaster. In many districts local government is verging on disaster.
It is very interesting to contrast what has happened in different areas. In the area of the London County Council we have the most efficient local government in the country. It is efficient because it is conducted on proper principles. I have here a table showing the rates as collected by the London County Council in one group, the metropolitan boroughs, county boroughs, municipal boroughs and urban districts—there is a general grouping according to classification of authorities. The London County Council show a relatively moderate increase in the amount they are raising by rates and spending. You find that some of the groups are spending three times as much as they did pre-war. What is the difference? Are our services inefficient in London? No. They are probably more efficient than in any town in the country. You have a council which has a policy. The policy of the ordinary
municipal authority does not exist. It is an accident. You have various chairmen of various committees pursuing an entirely independent policy, drifting along casually, no long view taken, no leadership, no cabinet system to produce a co-ordinated policy, and in most cases you find waste. The less numerous the councillors the better the policy. Very large bodies become difficult unless you impose upon them some form of cabinet system to control policy. Municipal government is drifting to disaster. It is over-burdened with work, although a great deal of it exists in the councillors arguing with each other. It is becoming steadily more difficult to get suitable and competent people to serve on the authorities, and I think municipal government is threatened with disaster.
We in this Chamber are responsible to some extent for the extravagance. We have imposed new burden after new burden on them. We cannot go on. We cannot afford it. We are spending money that we have not got. People are being compelled to dispose of their savings to pay their taxes. It cannot go on. It must come to an end. Some of the municipalities which have been grossly extravagant are on the verge of disaster, and it is conceivable that the House may have to make exceptional provision for some areas where literally the whole machine will come to an end and there will be no one left to pay the rates. The more these bodies have been influenced or controlled by members of the party opposite the nearer they are to disaster. We have to rescue them by taking up a strong line. We have to say to the public, "You cannot afford this; the nation cannot afford this." We have to try to rescue the country from disaster. I feel more strongly on this subject than on any other. I want to see my countrymen restored to employment and my country restored to prosperity.
Ever since the end of the War we have been pursuing a false policy. Improvements in trade and declines in unemployment in any period since the end of the War have been in those years which followed a substantial cut in the Income Tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in a position to make a substantial cut in the Income Tax nine weeks to-day, as I understand it will be, he would take more people from the queues outside Employment Exchanges than by anything
else he could do. This Parliament was elected for economy, and a great tribute was paid to it by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who said that it will go on economising. I realise all the pressure at the moment from the necessitous areas to spend money on creating useless work in order to put the people to doing something. When you are creating things which may be amenities you are imposing permanent charges which in a sense are useless. There is an insistent demand upon the Government from every necessitous area to do things which, if done, will plunge us deeper into the mire. We have to do what we can to resist the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough who wants to pursue a policy which will plunge his constituents into permanent unemployment.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: It is not my policy but the policy of the councils and municipalities of the Tees-side.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It may be, but that does not make it any the wiser. It does not matter what are their politics. If we learn from the leader of the party to which he is presumed to belong that peace, retrenchment and reform is the policy of the party, there is not a Liberal to-day preaching economy. They preach extravagance. The hon. Gentleman is preaching extravagance because it is popular among his constituents. What do they say? "Let us go south where they are better off." And he says: "Let us distribute some of their money among the people of Middlesbrough." The whole policy was practised in Sherwood Forest many years ago. It will not lead to the permanent prosperity of Middlesbrough or any other distressed area. In the interests of the distressed areas, we have to resist the extravagance which they themselves are urging. I hope that Members of the Committee will realise the vital necessity of economy. I wish that the Debate were taking place nine weeks from to-day, on Budget day. That is the real test. The tragedy is that we separate our policy. We have one period in the year when we vote Supplies and another when we impose taxation. I wish that the Finance Bill were also a Supply Bill. The hon. Member opposite suggested that it is a mean proposal, and asked why we cannot have a lot more money. Because we do not
know where we are going to find it on Budget Day, or even how to find what we are already spending. That is the answer. Members of the Committee must have the courage to stand up before their constituents and say "No." A resolution was passed unanimously by my town council asking me to support a programme of relief work, and I sent them three pages of explanation why I would not do what they had unanimously decided. Let the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough stand up to his town council. Let him resist.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I agree with them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: You agree with them? Then they have the Member they deserve. My conception of the duty of a Member of Parliament is that he should not follow his constituents but should lead them. They elect us because they think that we are not as bad as we really are. I am sorry I have taken up more than a fair share of the time of the Committee, but this is the first opportunity I have had of raising the general question of economy in municipal government and its reactions on economy in the National Government. I am convinced that, though many disagree with me at this moment, in the long run, they will be forced to conclude that, unless we economise and reduce taxation, we shall not rescue our people from their terrible plight.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I did not propose to rise to take part in this Debate but for the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). From the Ruling given at the commencement of the Debate, I wondered whether it would be possible for it to have taken such an enormous width but, from the speech we have just heard, apparently, anything may be said. It is really an insult to a very substantial number of eminent public men in this country that a speech of that kind should be delivered in the House of Commons. I have on my side a man who has been a leader in public affairs in Glamorgan for over 20 years, and I am certain that if my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon had been representing South Wales and not South Croydon such a speech would not have been delivered.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I lost my seat in Reading because I opposed certain proposals of the Liberals. I knew that when I made a certain speech I was turning away certain Liberal votes. I never hesitate to say what I think. I say what I think, and I take the consequences.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I did not make reference to Reading, but to South Wales.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I know.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am inclined to believe that the hon. Member largely represents geography and not humanity. There are some things which he said with which I agree. It is true that local government in this country needs a great deal of reformation. There is no shadow of doubt about that, but to infer that unemployment in this country is attributable to extravagance by local authorities is certainly not true. It is sheer humbug.

Mr. MAGNAY: It is sheer nonsense, and he knows it.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: To say that prosperity can return to this country by practising economy is sheer absurdity. We had a Debate last week on unemployment. Economy has taken place. Enormous sums, of money have been saved by the Government, but unemployment has increased by more than 400,000 during the last 12 months, when economy has been practised, both locally and nationally, to a greater extent than for many years past. In the month of January, as compared with the month of December, there was an increase of practically 180,000 in the unemployment register. To assume that, if there had been greater economy practised either nationally or by local authorities during that time, we should have been able to reduce the number of unemployed, or to increase substantially prosperity, is really ridiculous in the light of our experience. Unemployment, after all, is not a national matter. It is really an international problem. Have we to assume that 15,000,000 people are idle in the United States owing to the extravagance of local authorities, that 5,000,000 in Germany are idle owing to the extravagance of local authorities, and that the increase in unemployment during the last three or four years in France, from almost an infinitesimal number to the figure at which it stands to-day, is attributable to the extravagance of local authorities?
When will the hon. Member for South Croydon realise that he is not a walking encyclopoedia and that he does not possess all the prevision and omniscience to advise all local authorities in the country as to when they should spend this, that or the other upon what they consider to be fit and proper for their people? It is sheer impertinence to assume that good public men who have given their services—after all, business men—are extravagant. Is Liverpool in its present plight owing to Labour legislation or a majority of Labour members upon the council? Has it threatened default because of extravagance? Is Birmingham which, after all, is the place where the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has given most of his life in public work, in its present plight because business men have done nothing in the affairs of local government? It is really time that the hon. Member should come down to earth and apologise to public authorities, and particularly to public men who have spent an enormous amount of time in trying to put their local authorities into something like a relatively good position as business authorities.
I am certainly dissatisfied with the Resolution before the Committee. I realise, like the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), that it is impossible for us to amend it. We are substantially tied to the Act of 1929, and it is difficult, in the light of the facts as we know them, to suggest anything to the Minister which would help to improve particularly distressed areas like South Wales, Durham, the Tyne and the West of Scotland. I put this consideration to the Minister for (his reflection. It was certainly impossible for the House, when the Debate was taking place which ultimately resulted in the Act of 1929 being placed upon the Statute Book, to have been able to visualise precisely what has occurred in places like South Wales. It was practically impossible for Members fully to have appreciated in 1928, when the discussion was taking place, that more than 60 per cent, of the normal complement of men engaged in the mining industry in Glamorgan would have been rendered idle at this time, and that one of the factors, namely, the decline in population, would have seriously prejudiced our block grant, if not for the incoming grant period, certainly for the quinquennial period,
which is the next five years. We know that the population is being reduced by migration not only in Glamorgan but in the whole of South Wales. That is a factor which could not have been fully appreciated by the House when the present Act, which gives rise to the Resolution, was being placed upon the Statute Book.
I wonder whether it will be possible for the Minister, in his reply, to give some indication that Glamorgan or South Wales can have further consideration, if not in regard to this matter, in regard to the deputation which came before him on Friday last in connection with a loan and things of that kind. I place that before him because I have great difficulty in arguing against the Resolution strictly in accordance with the Rules of Order. We charge the Government with meanness in sticking to the bare minimum and merely advancing some £2,500 beyond what we are allowed by Statute. We charge them with positive meanness in not trying at least to reach the maximum rather than keep to the bare minimum. At the same time, we cannot possible move an increase, and certainly we shall not be prepared to advance, even by argument or by deed, anything which implies a decrease. I would ask the Minister, when replying on the Financial Resolution, whether he has really given us his last word with regard to what can be done for depressed areas like Glamorgan, Durham, the West of Scotland, and particularly the Tyneside, and the Liverpool area? Is it not possible for Members of this House to hear something from him that indicates that he fully appreciates the terrible plight through which we are passing in the distressed areas? I do not desire to place before the House evidence of the enormous distress that prevails. I do not desire to advance any figures, because they are all to hand. The Minister is well advised by his Department, from statistics that are periodically obtained, as to what is happening in South Wales. In Glamorgan we are faced with a rate for Poor Law purposes of 8s. 1¾d. In Monmouthshire we are faced with a rate of 6s. 8d. In Merthyr the rate is 13s. for Poor Law purposes only. The rate for Poor Law and general district purposes amounts to 27s.
I want the hon. Member for South Croydon to realise that that is not due to extravagance, but to the fact that we have so many vacant businesses that are paying no rates, that the Derating Act could not have contemplated what has happened in South Wales, and that the weight of population could not have been fully considered in the light of anticipated or known facts. All these factors are the cause of the enormous distress in South Wales, and we say that as a matter of bare justice something ought to be done by the Government to give necessary assistance to those areas that have been responsible mainly for producing the wealth of Great Britain and have made Great Britain what it is—the great coal-bearing, steel-producing, ship-producing areas of Britain. The richer areas of the South, the richer boroughs of London, areas that can really afford it, ought willingly to do something in order to help to carry the heavy burden that is thrust upon the weak shoulders of the distressed areas.
The burden of the Poor Law should be a national charge and not a local responsibility. Areas that are merely paying 9d. in the pound Poor Law rate ought certainly to bear a substantial proportion of the burden that is now being borne by places like Glamorgan, where the rate is 8s. 1d. As a matter of bare equity the areas that are purely residential, health resorts and the like, ought to carry some responsibility for the areas that have mainly been responsible for creating the wealth which the residential areas enjoy. We oppose this Resolution because of its utter meanness, and I trust that the Minister, in reply, will give some encouragement to the distressed areas, and some indication of what he is prepared to do to help them out of their plight.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The earlier part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) in reply to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) leads one to paraphrase a well-known quotation: "When Williams meets Williams, then comes the tug-of-war." The hon. Member for Ogmore has attempted to reply to the wholly admirable speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon by a number of assertions for which he produces no evidence what-
soever. As one who has spent most of a short life in local government work, I wish to endorse every word that fell from the lips of the hon. Member for South Croydon. I say quite definitely that my belief is—although I do not hold my own opinions in very great esteem, they are at least as valuable as those of the hon. Member for Ogmore—that local authorities have been in the past and at this moment are grossly extravagant, and that local and national extravagance on various services is a very large contributory cause of unemployment.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: indicated dissent.

Mr. BEAUMONT: The hon. Member for Ogmore disagrees. I did not expect him to do anything else, but his disagreement does not alter my opinion. We have to face up to the fact that the only thing that has not been tried in this country is economy. The hon. Member for Ogmore said that we have been economising for the last 15 months. The reason why we welcome the smallness of the present Vote, and we wish that it was smaller, is because the value of it is the return of money to the people in reduced taxes and rates. The hon. Member referred to Liverpool and asked us whether the plight of Liverpool was a question of Socialist administration.

Mr. E, WILLIAMS: That was the assertion made by the hon. Member for South Croydon.

Mr. BEAUMONT: What my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon said was that where the party opposite had had influence over local authorities extravagance was increased.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: That is not true.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Broadly, I think it is true. You will always find that councils with a Socialist majority indulge in the highest expenditure and are to be found among those who waste most money. That is not to say that there are not a large number of grossly extravagant councils with Conservative majorities, or with entirely Conservative constitutions.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has charged me with not adducing more facts in substantiation of my argument. Will he mention one authority administered under a Socialist régime that is more extravagant because of that?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Yes, the Durham County Council, of which I know something, and there are many others.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member deducts from the general rate of the Durham County Council the enormous expenditure on Poor Law, does he then assume that it is more extravagant than others?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Certainly, and I should be pleased to discuss it with the hon. Member afterwards and give him facts and figures for my belief. The fundamental difference between the hon. Member for South Croydon, myself and those who think with us and the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and those who agree with him is that they believe that these services should be carried on and expanded at all costs. We believe that the first essential is the reduction of public expenditure. We believe with the right hon. Member for Wakefield that men are more important than money, but our view is that it is more important to get money into the pockets of the men through the usual and normal channels than to spend money on services which are always extravagant, often inefficient and sometimes of very questionable value.
Like the hon. Member for South Croydon, I would have moved a reduction of the Vote had it been possible to do so. I am grateful to the Ministry that they have not been led away into an expansion of these services. Whatever may be said of the policy of capital expenditure on public works, I am still of opinion that it is a doubtful policy. This money comes directly from the pockets of the taxpayers and ratepayers and, as the national income is shriking, the sources from which the money comes are considerably smaller. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ogmore has visited Vienna. If not, I would advise him to do so. For 14 years Vienna has concentrated on its social services, but the poverty one sees there is worse than anything in South Wales.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Why?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Because the money of the people has been wasted on social services.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Wasted?

Mr. BEAUMONT: Yes, wasted.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Does the hon. Member mean that?

Mr. BEAUMONT: I repeat the assertion. I know what the hon. Baronet is thinking. I do not mean that all the money spent on social services is of necessity wasted, but I say that if you take money, as we are doing now, which would be better used in development of trade and you use it in public expenditure through wasteful means—moneys given to local authorities is less efficiently expended than private money—I do not think anyone will seriously question that statement—

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I do.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I am sorry if the hon. Member questions it.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I certainly do.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I say that, in those circumstances, much of the money is wasted. The hon. Member for Ogmore questioned whether the unemployment all over the world is to be attributed to the extravagance of local authorities. A great deal of the world situation is attributable to the absurd ideas of public expenditure which have been in the minds of people ever since the War, all over the world.

Mr. MAGNAY: Does the hon. Member mean waste or abuse? Is it waste to keep the unemployed alive in a constituency like mine?

Mr. BEAUMONT: That is not waste, but it is wasteful to give money in the form of benefit that might be spent in giving them work.

Mr. MAGNAY: rose—

Mr. BEAUMONT: I hope the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech in my own way. If we believe, as we do, that the policy of expenditure is having a serious effect in the country as a whole, and that the only way to prosperity is to bring about a reduction in public and local expenditure, we must be extremely grateful that the Government have not seen fit to increase the present advance, but only to round it off, and we must express the hope that they will in future by every means in their power do what they can to reduce expenditure—and not be led away by hon. Members below the
Gangway on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite—to pursue the policy of economy and to obtain full benefit from it.

6.14 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: I was surprised to hear the opinions put forward by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). He talked about extravagance. I have had considerable experience of local authorities. When he says that the Socialists are more extravagant than any other party, he is making a great mistake. I have had experience of his party and of other parties controlling local authorities before the Socialist party became strong enough to control itself. Let me give him one instance of his own party controlling in the county of Glamorgan. When they were controlling local authorities in the county of Glamorgan the average price paid for land was over £700 per acre, but since the Socialist party came in the average has been reduced to less than £300.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: What was the land used for?

Sir W. JENKINS: For schools and things of that nature. It is no use the hon. Member talking about Socialist extravagance. We know something about Conservative extravagance. Given the same facilities and opportunities, the Socialist party is quite equal to any party in the State in the matter of controlling local government.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Member tells me, but is it not the case that the Socialist party in Glamorganshire have launched out on a great many developments and new schemes which never occurred when the older party was in power? I am not saying that we are not extravagant; I am saying that you are.

Sir W. JENKINS: We have endeavoured to find employment for the men in the county as economically as possible. We have given work to discharged soldiers, and done everything we can to assist men during these difficult times. When hon. Members opposite charge depressed industrial areas with extravagance it must be remembered that the country owes a debt of gratitude to the men from these areas. Men who had
volunteered had to be sent back from the front to work the mines in Glamorganshire. They were very anxious to defend their country. What is the condition of men in the mining areas to-day? I was delighted that the Minister of Health came down to Glamorganshire. I accompanied him through a number of our distressed areas. We went through the Rhondda Valley, and the impression conveyed to the Minister of Health was one of real distress on the part of the people. We travelled through the valleys and found shops closed and barricaded, houses derelict, indeed, the whole area looked derelict. I am talking about the mining industry because I know more about it than I do of any other industry. The coal is still there, but the men are unemployed. This Government and previous Governments have been using something other than coal. They ought to use more coal in order to give employment to our miners.
When the Minister of Health was in the area we pointed out to him what could be done. There has been a considerable increase in the number of unemployed in the county on account of collieries and steel works closing down. There is, I admit, a slight improvement in the tin works. The average rate of public assistance at the moment is 8s. 1.75d., but the total amount may be increased because for the month of January last we had 1,400 more men coming to the public assistance committee than we had in January of last year. They will be an additional charge. What are we going to do? A large number of these miners who are being thrown out of employment will, through the means test, be transferred to the local rates. We are paying them. The increased payment for the last two weeks is at the rate of £100 per week, upon a present charge of £13,330 per week, and I am afraid that we shall have to continue to pay this amount because collieries are still closing down. There is a colliery in the Rhondda Valley where about 600 men are at present under notice, and they will come upon the local authority for some financial assistance.
I hope that some other way will be found to deal with this problem. I was looking at the returns of the coalowners the other day. The audit shows a loss in the mining industry of 4d. per ton. The local rates are 1.44d., but when I look at the royalties and rents they work
out at 7.87d. per ton. Surely something could be done in that direction. If the royalties were not charged—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is now getting away from the Resolution.

Sir W. JENKINS: I was pointing out the effect this had upon local rates. The Minister of Health came down and saw the conditions for himself. We took him wherever he wanted to go, and I am satisfied that he will give us some assistance. There are several ways in which it could be done. Here is an opportunity, when the right hon. Gentleman is distributing this new money, this £5,000,000. The additional grant to the county of Glamorgan is totally inadequate to meet the position, and I hope he will be able to give more than the £348,000. At the moment we have to repay something to the Ministry of Health, something which was overpaid in the year 1930. It was not our fault, but I hope the Minister of Health will be able to relieve us of that payment, which would be equal to a 2½d. rate. If he cannot do that, then I hope some other way will be found, by deferring payment, in the hope that things may be better later on. The additional cost of maternity and child welfare in the county of Glamorgan is considerable, and the cost of tuberculosis is increasing. The number of blind persons in the county is the highest for the whole of the country. We have to give assistance to these unfortunate people, many of whom are now blind through working in the mines. It is all very well for the hon. Member for London to be grinning and laughing; he knows nothing about the mining industry—

Sir WILLIAM RAY: Is the hon. Member referring to me?

Sir W. JENKINS: Yes. You know nothing about—

Sir W. RAY: I must protest—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot speak; the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) has not given way.

Sir W. RAY: May I protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Neath? I was not laughing, and I should be the last person in the world to laugh at any time at distress. I hope the hon. Member will apologise.

Sir W. JENKINS: I was referring to the number of blind people—

Sir W. RAY: May I ask the hon. Member to apologise?

Sir W. JENKINS: And while we have such a large number in the area we have to give them financial assistance. I ask the Minister of Health whether it is possible for him to increase the amount of the block grant given to the county of Glamorgan so that we may continue to assist these people? Another call upon us is the cost of the mentally defective. They are increasing in number and we have to meet that expenditure, which is very heavy indeed. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some financial assistance. We need it now. We do not want to increase the rates this year, if it is possible, because the wages of the people who are at present employed are low, £2 5s. to £2 10s., and we cannot add anything to the rates. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try to find some solution in order that we may receive a greater contribution to the needs of the county this year.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) did not see his way to withdraw the unwarranted attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray). My hon. Friend was not smiling and is the last man to smile at distress. It is rather a pity that this Debate has got into personalities and into charges made by one party against the other, because it does not help towards a solution of the problem. The question as to whether the Socialist party are extravagant does not really help the situation. Although I should support the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who have been waging this fight, I do not agree with them as to the ground upon which they are fighting it. It is an unfortunate Vote upon which to fight that battle. I am certain, however, that we must have more economy. Everyone will agree that the higher the taxation and the higher the rates the less employment you will get. There is no getting away from that fact; and it should be the duty of everyone to try to reduce taxation and the rates.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS: We never had any trouble in this country about high taxation and. high rates when productivity was on a high level and people were employed. How can we solve unemployment by economy?

Mr. PETO: During the War and after we were running heavily into debt and we have to pay sooner or later. We want to see taxation and rates reduced; and that is the reason why we want to see local expenditure reduced. We know the difficulties of local authorities and there is no reason for general accusation of extravagance. We have had a most excellent report from a committee of representatives of local authorities, headed by the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) which went closely into local expenditure. They recommend great economies, and I hope that we are going to be told by the Government what action they are going to take on that report. It is a valuable document prepared by local authorities themselves, and I am sure that the whole country is anxious to know what action will be taken in regard to it. I cannot, however, agree with my hon. Friends that this is a good opportunity to suggest a reduction in the amount of money granted to local authorities. This sum is in accordance with a pact made definitely by the Government of the day in 1929, and we assured local authorities, when we were substituting a block grant for a percentage grant, that though we were anxious that the change should lead to economy, their services were not going to lose by it. Particularly do I remember addressing various meetings of women who were very anxious that women's social services should not be reduced when they lost the percentage grant, and we gave very definite assurances on that point. So I do not call it a very auspicious occasion on which to advocate a reduction of grants from the central Government to the local authorities. I do not think we ought to recommend the central Government to do any such thing.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: No one has suggested that they should. The hon. Member is apparently accusing the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and myself of suggesting that the sum should be cut down. We realise
fully that it could not be cut down, and I do not think anyone has recommended that it should be cut down.

Mr. PETO: The hon. Member for South Croydon expressed regret that he was not able to move his Amendment. If it had been in his power to cut down the amount he would have cut it down, apparently, and I thought that the hon. Member for Aylesbury was supporting him in that. Let us pass this Resolution certainly. I do not see that we can ask the central Government to grant a larger sum to local authorities, as certain hon. Members have urged. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams) and others opposite have spoken of the difficulties of the distressed areas, with which one cannot help sympathising. The question is really one of the redistribution among local authorities of the moneys available. A formula was worked out under the 1929 Act for the weighting of unemployment, by which the more depressed areas drew more money at the expense of the richer areas. Subject to correction, I believe that that formula comes up for revision every three or four years, and no doubt in the light of experience the formula needs reconsideration. That would help the distressed areas considerably. But do not let us urge the central Government to increase their general grant. I support the plea for economy, but I urge the Government not to cut down the promises they made under the 1929 Act.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: It seems to me that the discussion is beginning to pivot round a rather academic question, as to what is wise and what is not wise expenditure. While I agree with those who object to unnecessary expenditure at a time of financial stringency, I repudiate the charge that all expenditure on social services is waste. When I travel through the derelict valleys of South Wales I realise the enormous waste of human life and of capital assets that is going on. It is easy to say, as has been said frequently, that the "dole" is waste. After all, the money which has been distributed in this way has been used in buying commodities, and there are scores of small traders who long ago would have had to go out of business had it not been for this purchasing power. But my point is this: the Minister of Health ought to
have regard to the fact that many new factors have emerged since his formula was framed. The situation has changed, unexpected elements have appeared, and I feel certain that the block grants which have now been announced are not going to ease the situation. I know that rates have been mounting in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire and other places, and I do not see how the Government are going to make any contribution to the solution of this problem by lopping off the block grant from an area like Carmarthenshire or Breconshire in order to increase it in Glamorgan and Monmouth. I have gone to some trouble in ascertaining the position.

Sir H. YOUNG: May I intervene in order to avoid disappointment? I shall not be in order in dealing with the general distribution of grants. Therefore, it will not be in my power to reply as fully as I would like to the question which the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. EVANS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will keep in mind the fact that nothing is really solved by robbing impoverished Peter to pay more impoverished Paul. The position in South Wales is one which does require very close attention. I do not for a moment impugn the sympathy of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, for I feel certain that they are anxious to do all they can, but I would like to present them and the Committee with certain figures, because the vast increase in the rates in these areas cannot possibly be assigned to extravagance. Here and there there may be unwise expenditure, but the desperate rate situation in South Wales is not the result of extravagance, whatever may be determined by committees sitting in London. Those who live in South Wales know something of the situation there. Take Glamorgan and its steadily worsening position. When the administration of the Poor Law was taken over by public assistance committees from the guardians, the number of cases dealt with in the administrative area of Glamorgan was 16,882. That involved a weekly expenditure of £9,928. Note the steadily worsening position: On 5th April, 1931, the 16,882 had gone up to 19,779, in the corresponding week of 1932 it had risen to 20,402, and on 11th February last to 22,632. Year by year the weekly expendi-
ture has gone up, from £9,928 to £12,851, then to £12,819 and last week to £13,863.
Take the case of Monmouthshire. £2,470 was paid per week in public assistance in April, 1930. That became £3,593 in 1931, £3,733 in 1932, and on 11th February it was £4,375. Go to Merthyr and to the Rhondda Valley and other areas, and you find the weekly burden increasing. What is to happen? I feel sometimes that public administration will break down under the strain if this sort of thing is to last for a period of 10 years, as was adumbrated last week. It might be said, and has been said very cogently, that this burden should be placed on a broader basis, that the wealthier communities should be made to sustain something of the burden. I agree, so long as you make your basis wide enough. I am one of those who believe that the maintenance of the poor should be an Imperial charge rather than a local charge. The National Exchequer receives its funds out of Income Tax and Super-tax. I am no believer in high taxation for high taxation's sake, but unless there is an income there is no tax. In the case of local taxation, whether a business is paying or not it has to pay rates, and the payment of rates has no relation to capacity to pay. That is why the steadily increasing burden of local taxation is becoming so onerous. I say therefore make the basis wide enough and the charge a national, not a local one.
I suggest that as far as South Wales is concerned the agricultural areas are gradually getting into difficulties. In Carmarthenshire and Breconshire, two typical agricultural areas with certain industrial spots on the periphery, you find public assistance charges mounting up, though not as rapidly as in the industrial areas. What I fear is that the kind of redistribution which will be undertaken by the Minister will be the lopping off of the block grant to the agricultural areas in order to assist the industrial areas. I gather that already in Carmarthenshire a reduced block grant is to mean an increase of 6d. in the rates. If the present depression is to continue, if responsibility for maintaining the unemployed is to be regarded as a public charge, something will have to be done. We cannot allow things to drift. While I shall vote for this resolution it will not be because I am satisfied with it.
I want to point out another reason for the increase in local rates, in a large number of areas. It is due to the fact that arrears are mounting up under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. In some cases rates in aid have had to be raised in order to make up the deficiency between what is collected from the mortgagors and what has to be paid to the Public Works Loans Board. It is becoming a desperately serious question in a large number of areas. I appeal to the Minister to take a wider view of this question. I know that the resolution we are discussing is largely automatic, and is the natural consequence of the Act of 1929. But I tell the Minister that these authorities simply must be helped; otherwise local administration will break down under the strain.

6.44 p.m.

Major HILLS: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. G. Peto) I am in a middle position in this discussion. I do not agree with the strictures of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and I cannot agree with all that was said by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams). I would remind the hon. Member for South, Croydon of the very great advantage, from the point of view of economy, of the good accounting that we gained from the Act of 1929. The block grant system does define the State liability and enables the House of Commons to have a voice in regard to the expenditure of this money, whereas under the percentage grant system we really had to pay money which we did not want to vote. The last speaker has appealed to the Minister for additional assistance. I think he understands that the sum of £5,348,000 alluded to in the Memorandum is a minimum sum. It is the sum that is to be paid in aid of rates and the Minister quite rightly said that he could not tell the hon. and gallant Member who has just addressed the Committee anything about the distribution of that sum. Of course the distribution has two bearings because the needy authorities in the distressed areas will probably require more of the amount available and that will come out of the pockets of the, shall I say, more economical or more prosperous areas.
The point which I wish to make to the Committee, however, is that we have now
regained a power which we had given up, namely, the definite power of saying exactly how far we shall assist any area that wants assistance. It is now entirely a matter for the Government and the House of Commons. If the Minister of Health in his discretion thinks that certain extra assistance should be given it is quite open to him to propose it here. If on the other hand he thinks that the state of the country is such that no extra assistance should be given then, equally, the power is his to refrain from taking such action. The only regret that I have about the Act of 1929, which I supported, is that it does not go further. I would like to see all services put on the block grant system, but I think the Committee ought to realise the great power that we now have both of spending money and of refraining from spending money. For the first time we know exactly where we are. Somebody has to decide these big questions and I am perfectly certain that we cannot do better than leave such a question as this to the House of Commons under the guidance of the Government. They have the power to say whether the amount is sufficient, and, if it ought to be increased, by what sum it ought to be increased. There is also of course the much more invidious and difficult question of how this sum ought to be distributed. The fact that we have that power now is a result of that most beneficent Act of 1929.

6.50 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I deeply regret that I have not been able to hear the whole of this Debate, but I understand that there has been an attack from certain portions of the Tory party on our social services. I am sure that the Government must resist all attacks on our social services. It is depressing to hear anybody speak in these days of the failure of our social services because our social services have, literally, saved England, and made her the great country which she is to-day. I have been this morning in one of the poorest parts of London and in view of what I saw there I earnestly beg of the Minister to remember that we trust the National Government to watch over the welfare and health of the people. It is truly staggering to see the sacrifices that many mothers are making at this time. I
came across one case of a woman whose husband is a docker, working perhaps two days a week and earning about 18s. a week. She has four children. Her husband refuses now to go to the public assistance committee. The means test was so severely administered that his pride was moved and he refused to go again. That is not the fault of the Government. It is necessary to have a means test, but the Minister of Health must keep a strict eye on the manner in which it is being administered. A means test is wanted in order to find what the means of people are, but we do not want people to be cut down below the subsistence level. If they are, the whole country suffers and as the health of the people is involved it is a matter on which I hope the Minister of Health will keep watch. I do not agree with my hon. Friends who sit on the other side of the Gangway and who say that we ought not to have any means test at all.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of the means test cannot arise on this Resolution. The hon. Lady is quite entitled to argue, either that this amount should be granted, or that a larger amount should be granted, or that all the services concerned should be maintained, but the question of the means test cannot arise on this occasion.

Viscountess ASTOR: Then I leave it out. I am all for this grant, and I think we ought to give the Minister all he wants in this matter. If he needs more for the health services of the country then he ought to have it. I have recently been in the North where I have had the opportunity of seeing open-air nursery schools. Now there is something which the Government ought to encourage.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the Noble Lady again, but nursery schools come under the Vote for the Board of Education, and that service is not covered by the block grant.

Viscountess ASTOR: Nobody knows better than I do that they are under the Board of Education, but the Minister of Health has the opportunity of going round the country and seeing the condition of the children, and he can urge on the Government that the best way of dealing with the children is by means of these nursery schools. He has a chance which nobody else in the country has of seeing the general health of the children
under five and it is his duty to look after the health of those children. It is alarming to see the conditions into which the parents of many of these children are getting. The Minister in looking after this matter will have the backing of the whole House of Commons with the exception of a few disgruntled, reactionary people who speak without authority and certainly without any comprehension of what our social services have done.
One of the great difficulties about the House of Commons is that there are a great many in it with the best hearts and wills in the world but they blindly trust the Government. Now I want them to trust the Government but I also want them to watch the Government particularly on this question of health. I do not join with some of my hon. Friends in saying that things are desperate and worse than they have ever been. But I know that everything cannot be put right in three weeks. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in the Labour Government said that if a Labour Government got into office, in three weeks, by administrative action, everything would be put right, the bairns would get boots, the children would get milk and so forth. Well, the Labour Government got in, and the children had less milk and fewer boots. But we expect the National Government to do something and I implore the Minister to watch the health of the children under five years. After that age they have a chance of being fed at school but before five years is the time when children are most liable to diseases. The right hon. Gentleman knows that 30 per cent, of the children entering elementary schools are physically defective and not able to take the education which is offered to them. If through open-air nursery schools we—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in this grant which would enable the Minister or the local authority to spend one farthing on nursery schools. That is a matter which should be raised on the Vote for the Board of Education.

Viscountess ASTOR: But can we not urge upon the Minister of Health the necessity of watching the health of children up to five years. If he does not do so, there is nobody else to do it. I beg of him to watch with a kind heart
and a very keen eye over the interests of these children, because, once their health goes, we have lost something which we cannot get back. We may economise in other directions but we must; not economise at the expense of the health of the children. We trust the Minister implicitly but I hope he will bear in mind the importance of the considerations which I have been urging upon him.

6.55 p.m.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I find some difficulty in appreciating why the Committee is spending so much time in discussing this Resolution in view of the fact that we are not allowed to take into account the distribution of the money. But I would like to say a word or two in appreciation of the great services rendered by our local authorities. They shoulder huge responsibilities and undertake heavy duties, without pay, and are often rewarded only with complaints. I hold the view strongly that the greatness of our country depends to a large extent on the unpaid services so generously given by the local authorities. To-day we are discussing the application of an arithmetical calculation made in 1929, and I think that this Debate has been a great tribute to the work which was done in 1929. We then decided to substitute in respect of these services, block grants for the ad hoc grants which existed previously. At that time I held the view, which I still hold, that a sum of £5,000,000 was not sufficient to meet the demands for expanding services which would be made upon local authorities. At the same time, I understand from the White Paper that this Resolution is the result of considerable negotiation both with the Municipal Corporations' Association and the County Councils' Association, and that it is in agreement with their general outlook.
I venture to think that we embarked on a great experiment in 1929. Local government has not, perhaps, attained as much freedom from inspection and control as it expected as a result of the passing of that Act, or as much as it deserved. There is rather more supervision and, in some cases, some measure of meticulous interference. However, local authorities will agree that there are some black sheep to be found everywhere, and some machinery must be set
up to deal with those black sheep. There are some councils which are all too extravagant and who think that anything which they fancy will not do them any harm, while there are others who are so economical as to be parsimonious. It is very difficult to draw the line between wise expenditure and wasteful expenditure, but our system has worked well. The formula has worked exceedingly well, and such difficulties as have arisen have been sometimes due to a lack of statesmanship, if I may use such a term, on the part of some of the permanent officials of the local authorities. Where there are permanent officials who understand the need for give-and-take, who try to smooth over difficulties, we find that the grants given under this proposal are considered adequate and are made to give a very fair return in the services on which they are expended. I support the Resolution, which I hope will meet with the approval of the Committee.

7 p.m.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: I do not propose to enter into the acrimonious back-chat of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams). I want to bring one fact to the notice of the Minister because a little time ago he was in the north, and Liverpool has been mentioned several times in the Debate. I want to bring to his notice the expenditure of the public assistance committee which this year was £l,200,000. For next year the estimate is £1,600,000, an increase of about 33⅓per cent. We really do not know where the money is to be found. The right hon. Gentleman's visit to the north, I am sure, brought this prominently to his mind. When this White Paper was first produced, we were bitterly disappointed, but on further thought, and taking into consideration the statement of the Prime Minister a little time ago as to the probability of the number of permanent unemployed, and what the Chancellor said last Thursday about the probability of the great length of time before we shall come to complete grips with this problem; taking into consideration also the fact that this really gives us no relief beyond a statutory relief, which the Minister is bound to give, we are hopeful, because before long we believe that the whole of this will be reviewed. We trust that the
Ministry of Health in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour will be able to bring forward in the new Bill on unemployment insurance provisions which will give relief to distressed areas.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: I desire to support the protest which has been made from this side of the Committee against the amount contained in this Financial Resolution. We were somewhat alarmed at the speeches made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), particularly that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who suggested that the grant should be smaller. The hon. Member for South Croydon made an attack upon the local authorities and complained that they were very extravagant. For some years I have been a member of a local authority. I was a member when the Independents or the anti-Labour members had a majority, and also when the Labour members or Socialists had a majority. I know that my hon. Friend would not accept my opinion as being unbiased, but, if I were asked, I should say that the work of the local authority of which I was a member was much more efficiently carried out when the Socialist party was in a majority than when the anti-Socialists were in power. I can understand the hon. Member for Aylesbury making the kind of speech that he has made seeing that he is a Member of an agricultural Division. He certainly would not make that kind of speech if he had represented an industrial Division. I can understand why he was not elected on the two occasions when he offered himself for an industrial Division if the speech which he made this evening was the kind of speech he made in the Division upon which he endeavoured to foist his services.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I have been nearer to it than anybody else.

Mr. HALL: But the hon. Member was not elected. He now represents a Division, like that of the hon. Member for South Croydon, which does not spend much money upon social services. I understand that he would further restrict the amount of money which is being spent, for the Financial Resolution really means that for the next grant period of
four years the social services of the local authorities shall be stabilised.

Major HILLS: As far as grants are concerned.

Mr. HALL: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must understand that in those areas where social services are greatly needed the rates are so high owing to the depression that it is almost impossible to spend an additional penny out of the rates for the extension of those services. Let us look at the figures of the amount of money spent on social services in Buckinghamshire, in which the Division represented by the hon. Member for Aylesbury is situated. On the tuberculosis service the expenditure is £60 19s. 5d. per 10,000 of the population. In Cambridgeshire, which is almost next door to Buckinghamshire, where the population is smaller, the expenditure per 10,000 of the population is £94 7s. 3d. The hon. Member would not desire his county to emulate the county of Cambridge. He would be anxious that Cambridge should emulate the example of Buckingham. In an industrial area like Lancashire, where the population is 1,700,000, the expenditure on tuberculosis is £103 per 10,000 of the population. If you take the whole of the social services for which this money is voted, you find that in the county represented by the hon. Member for Aylesbury the expenditure is very much lower than in most other counties.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: And you will find that the services are every bit as efficient.

Mr. HALL: I do not know that I should agree with that point, because I would not like to think that the services in Cambridgeshire are any less efficient than those in Buckinghamshire or in Lancashire, where there is not a Socialist majority. One is very tired of hearing all this talk of extravagance and of cutting down the social services. If all the money which is spent on social services were discontinued to-morrow and not a single penny spent on education, public health, the relief of persons suffering from tuberculosis, blind welfare, infant mortality and maternity, and if we simply budgeted a sum sufficient to pay interest and sinking fund, war pensions and the expenses of the Fighting
Services, we should have to raise two and a-half times the amount of the Budget of 1913–14. The hon. Member for Aylesbury and the hon. Member for South Croydon are constantly attacking the social services which render such help to the poor people of this country, and which cost quite a small amount in comparison with the amount spent for the purposes which I have mentioned. On no occasion, however, has any protest been made by them on behalf of a reduction in the amount of interest upon War Debt, upon the amount set aside for Sinking Fund, and the amount which is spent on the Armed Forces, but there is a constant attack upon the social services from which so many people derive benefit.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The hon. Member is not quite just. Both the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and I have on occasions attacked the question of the Sinking Fund and the money paid to it. We do not confine ourselves to attacks on the social services.

Mr. HALL: It must have been when I was absent, for I have never heard a protest from the hon. Member against the money which is spent in that way. One would imagine that the rates which are being paid to the local authorities did not come out of the pockets of the people. All the rates come out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and more and more since the passing of the Derating Act and the Local Government Act these rates are thrown upon the shoulders of the poor people. We protest against this sum being so small because the distressed areas will suffer more and more as a result of the operation of the block grant. Take some of the areas in the county of Glamorgan which has been referred to in the Debate. In that county an average of 44 per cent, to 45 per cent, of the male insured persons are unemployed. There is one area where no less than 94 per cent, are unemployed. It is in those areas where there should be an extension of the social services and where we can expect an extension of the scourge of tuberculosis. It is there that we want blind welfare to operate even more than it is operating now, where we look for an increase in infant mortality, and where we want a considerable more maternity work done. For that
reason, we think that the amount asked for in the Financial Resolution is inadequate.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that the Act of 1929 was far-reaching and revolutionary. It completely changed the financial relationship between the Treasury and the local authorities. It did not remove the difficulties with which the distressed areas were confronted, and from the operation of the Act until the present time nothing has been done which has in any way relieved the difficulties with which a number of those areas were confronted. We hoped that it would be possible in this discussion for the Minister of Health to make some statement with regard to the position of those local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the formula and the weight of population and unemployment and said there was to be some readjustment, so that in some areas where the percentage grant was something like 8 per cent, owing to unemployment there would be an increase to something like 20 per cent., but he did not refer to the fact that in a large number of those areas there will be a reduction in the capitation grant under the formula because of the decrease of population. Owing to migration, the county of Glamorgan and the urban districts will suffer considerably. In the Aberdare urban district there has been a loss of something like 11 per cent, in the population as compared with the estimate which was made for fixing the grant for the first grant period and the census of 1931.
As a result now of the capitation grant being paid upon the population basis, there is going to be a loss to that local authority of something like £4,000 of grant in the next grant period. That loss will mean an increase of a 7d. rate in that area, not through any extravagance of the local authority, but owing to the fact that there has been a reduction in the population owing to the depression. The rates in that area at present are something like 20s. to 21s. in the pound, and the same thing applies to Mountain Ash. There will be a loss in the grant paid to Mountain Ash, again owing to a reduction in population, and a loss to the Rhondda Urban District Council equivalent to a 7d. rate. I know the right hon. Gentleman cannot deal with those points in his reply, but we would
like him to give some indication as to whether the Government are still considering the question of doing something for the distressed areas of this country. We have an estimated poor rate in the county of Glamorgan for next year of no less than 8s. 8d. in the pound, and they have to provide no less than £1,053,000 simply for the purposes of dealing with public assistance. Local government in the county of Glamorgan, we can safely say, is almost on the verge of breakdown, and we would ask that, in consideration of the financial relationship between the Ministry of Health and the local authorities, the position of the distressed areas should constantly be kept in mind.
In conclusion, I wish to express my disappointment at the fact that the Government should have thought fit to keep the new money almost to the minimum provided for under the Act of Parliament. I think it is £2,000 more than they were compelled to pay by Act of Parliament. We would have liked the Government to take into account the difficulties with which the distressed areas are confronted and that more money should be provided to deal with those essential services which unfortunately, through the continued depression causing so much unemployment, there is need, not to retard, but to extend.

7.18 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: Our Debate has certainly ranged over a very wide field—the value of social services, the basis of rating, the welfare of children, the true purpose of the sinking fund, and the bases of the Act of 1929. If I do not deal with all these high topics, I am sure the Committee will believe that it is not because I do not think they are important and well deserving attention, or because I have not great sympathy with much that has been said on these subjects, but that it is because I do not think they are strictly relevant to the purposes of this Resolution, which is indeed of a narrower nature.
Let me, in the first place, deal with the matter of procedure raised by my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). To his opinion on such matters the Committee will naturally attach great importance, but for once I cannot understand why it is that he is embarrassed by such an
ordinary piece of procedure. He complained, if I understood his complaint, of so big a heading of expenditure being proposed in anticipation of the Budget, but on the occasion of the Budget we consider, not expenditure, but how to meet expenditure, and the expenditure to which the Committee and the House agree is determined during the preceding months. The expenditure which is provided for in the Financial Resolution today will in due course find its provision in an Estimate, like any other expenditure, and our procedure in giving statutory authority for it by the approaching Measure is one of the most ordinary in the procedure of the House.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary certainly turned out a true prophet as to the course of the Debate. We have seen three schools of thought developed in the Debate—the school of thought which wanted more, the school of thought which wanted less, and, for an encouraging once, quite a solid body of opinion which thought the Government had taken the correct middle course. The school of thought which wanted more was principally represented, or at any rate led, by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who attacked the whole basis of the Act of 1929 in so far as we are concerned with it to-day. He said the formula is working badly, but I should attach the more weight to his opinion on this matter if he had taken any steps to remedy it during the two years during which he had an opportunity of so doing; but really, after listening to the vehemence of his observations to-day, I cannot wholly acquit him of some inattention to what he seems to consider, now at any rate, to have been an important duty which he then neglected.
The school of thought which desired that less should be voted upon this occasion was started by a very able speech, if I may have the presumption to say so, from my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). With what he said upon the subject of the principles of economy I find myself in very substantial agreement, but I should say at the outset that there was another part of his speech with which, if I understood him aright, I could not agree. That was that part which seemed to my mind and, I think, to some other Members of the Committee to
reflect upon the services of the local authorities. I am too well aware, even during my short experience of the office which I have the responsibility of holding, of the magnificent, assiduous, devoted service which is given to their country by members of local authorities of all types and shades of political opinion to allow myself to miss such an opportunity as this of vindicating those services in the presence of this Committee and the country as a whole.
Now let us turn to this question of economising by the local authorities. In the first place, the proposition must not be allowed to pass that the local authorities of the country as a whole have been inattentive to the need for a reasoned, systematic economy in our present financial conditions. On the contrary, they have applied themselves to that in a manner which is characteristic of that spirit of service to which I have already referred. I will not weary the Committee with further figures. I will but mention one figure in order to prove the truth of what I say, that good work for economy has been done, and that is that the total local expenditure from all sources is estimated to show a reduction of no less than £20,000,000 over the figure for the year 1929–30. I have not yet the figures for the whole of last year, but I have no doubt they will show a reduction and further economies too.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does that include the Poor Law?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, it includes everything. That is proof positive that a substantial effort has been made in that regard. Of course, the truth is that that economy, which I join with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon in seeking for the future, must depend far less upon the local authorities than upon this Committee and this House. For that great increase in the expenditure of the local authorities to which he has referred, is it the local authorities who are responsible? No, it is ourselves. It is we, by our considered—I have no doubt deeply considered—Resolutions from time to time who have forced these new objects of expenditure upon them, and it does not lie in our mouths to complain of the increase in the cost of the social services to the local authorities. We must accept responsibility for that.
In this regard we have had a very important, weighty, and authoritative report of late from the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray), and, if I may say so, that report brings to the light of day many subjects which are claimants for attention. The question has, quite rightly, been put to me to-day, What action do you propose to take? As regards one of the most important subjects in that Report, namely, the housing policy of the Government, action has already been taken and is contained in the Bills which are before the House, and it is in accordance with the opinions and the advice in the Report.
As regards other matters, which I can say without derogation are minor matters, the course which we propose to take is this: I propose within the course of a very short period to address a Circular to the local authorities calling attention to the recommendations of the Report, emphasising such matters as, in the opinion of the Government, require emphasis, and recommending the performance by the local authorities of such of the recommendations of the Report as, in the opinion of the Government, are worthy of immediate adoption.
Let me return now to the general discussion and emphasise this single angle of the Motion that is before us, in order that the Committee may be in a position to form a final judgment in the matter. I would emphasise that this is a Motion which has nothing novel in it. It is the fulfilment of an agreement—I will even say a solemn agreement—come to with the local authorities at the time of the Act of 1929. It is the fulfilment of a guarantee, because it is nothing less than a guarantee, which was given by the House and the Government to the local authorities at the time the Act of 1929 was passed. I think it ought to be emphasised on this, the first, occasion that there was something in the nature of a positive guarantee to the local authorities at the time the Act of 1929 was passed, when their finances were wholly reformed by the Act, that what we have now learned to call the new money should not be less than was specified in the Act. The suggestion on the part of the economy party to-day, that we should cut down the Exchequer contribution, would be a breach of that guarantee.
It may be suggested that a guarantee needs to be supported by common sense. It has the strongest support, of common sense, for the arrangement we are maintaining is this: It is no good in financial legislation to establish systems which are absolutely cast-iron, with no sort of elasticity. This country is not a country which shows no growth, change, or development, and when you are establishing a system you must allow a reasonable amount of elasticity. It is just that little bit of elasticity which is in the resolution to-day. It allows for development in those social services on which stress has been laid in relation to the increase in population, and in relation to improving standards. I would remind the Committee that that acts both ways. On this occasion there is elasticity which allows for a small increase. On another occasion the use of the elasticity might be found in the direction of providing for a small decrease of expenditure.
What remains for me to say has relation to the difficulties that have been spoken of, with so much force and so much eloquence in some parts of the Committee, in relation to the distressed areas. In the first place, let me call the attention of the Committee to a circumstance, which, I think, has escaped attention hitherto, that is that the arrangements which we are proposing to make will themselves provide a substantial relief to the areas which are most distressed. I know it is not relief commensurate with what they would like. What I say is that it is a substantial relief. The reason is that what we are distributing to-day is that part of the block grant which goes in proportion to the distress, measured by unemployment and other variable factors. The more money we vote to-day the greater is the advantage to the distressed areas. What is the measure of that advantage? Let me give a few instances to show what measure of positive advantage distressed areas gain from the Resolution we are proposing to-day. I will take the constituency of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith). I would like to congratulate him because his town stands to gain more than any other town—namely, a rate of 8.3d., which is a substantial contribution. That is a new advantage, an additional advantage under the Bill. West Hartlepool stands to gain
7.6d. I have taken other distressed towns and I find Sunderland gains a rate of 6.2d., Dudley 5.6d., Barnsley 5.5d. and Barrow 5.2d.

Mr. G. HALL: Has the right hon. Gentleman the details of a Welsh area?

Sir H. YOUNG: I can give the equivalent figures for Welsh cities or areas, but just at the moment I have not got them. I did not know that the case on behalf of Glamorgan was going to attract so much concentrated attention.

Mr. CHORLTON: I rose some time ago to ask if the right hon. Gentleman would give us a typical Lancashire cotton town.

Sir H. YOUNG: I will be happy to supply figures for any area in which the hon. Member is interested, but for the purposes of my speech I have chosen some of the most distressed and difficult areas. By the mere recalculation of the block grant for the second period, we do see positive gain to some of the most distressed areas. Let me deal with the case put on behalf of Glamorgan. I can refer to it, not only because so many hon. Members from that area spoke, but because it is a typical distressed area. I will say this, that the circumstances that hon. Members have been good enough to recognise are particularly well known to me. It has characteristics which are equally as difficult as those of any other area. As regards the particular measures which are suggested— I think by the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins)—I do not think it would be possible to give him more encouragement on this occasion than on past occasions because it would involve legislation. If I were to allow this area, or that particular area, not to repay the moneys legally due to the Exchequer I should have to pay the moneys myself, and I cannot afford it. Let me assure hon. Members that that matter is ever present in the minds of myself and those responsible—we recognise these difficulties; they are deserving of every consideration.

Sir W. JENKINS: Will he take into consideration a postponement of payment?

Sir H. YOUNG: Now the hon. Gentleman is cross-examining me unfairly on the details of a particular case. I can
only say that any representations will receive my most careful consideration. As regards the general situation of the distressed areas need I say again what an anxious subject of thought and attention for the Government the administration of these is at the present time? I do not think there is any danger of a breakdown. With every means of knowledge, and with the most careful attention to those representations made to me, I do not see any danger. That does not mean, of course, that it does not need consideration. Those representations put forward to-day on behalf of those districts, weighty as they are, grave as they are, do need close attention.
The Bill to which this Resolution leads has been explained to the Committee. It does not deal with the matter of distribution between areas. The Committee will remember the undertaking on this subject. It was that, in view of the great difficulty of the distressed areas, we should anticipate what was the intention as to the date of the reconsideration of the working of the formulae of the Act of 1929, as to the distribution of the total grant between areas, particularly in relation to the weight given to unemployment. That was my undertaking. It was to push forward and undertake at once a reconsideration of that distribution. That undertaking is being fulfilled. The question has been addressed to me, "Is it abandoned?" The answer is, "No." It is being fulfilled. It has reached a stage when all the necessary calculations and arithmetical work have been completed. As I told the House, there is another very important stage. There is the consultation with the representatives of associations of the local authorities. It is a question of redistribution. As Members have pointed out, what one stands to gain another stands to lose. If that is so, you cannot put it through by consulting only those who are to gain. Consultation is actually in course now.
I confirm the summary observation, very justly expressed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, that what is done to-day in fixing the total is done without prejudice to the application of the results of the inquiry. Let me refer to one other circumstance in this connection. The Committee is aware that,
since these matters to which I have just referred took place, the Royal Commission has reported on the future of the administration of unemployment insurance. The Committee is also aware that that report contains most sweeping recommendations as regards the financial basis of the cost of relief to the unemployed. I would say this, that the Government is at the present time considering that report. It is considering the recommendations of that report in relation to the basic finances of unemployment. It needs no special information from myself, or any great power of logical deduction for the Committee, to see that, in considering these matters, that consideration will sweep over such financial considerations affecting the distressed areas as we are discussing to-day.
It may be that decisions will be taken which will make this discussion, and this undertaking in relation to redistribution, obsolete. I rather imagine, in following the deliberations on this subject of the special and informal committee safeguarding the interests of distressed areas, that they are, in these circumstances, looking to some action being taken on the Report of the Royal Commission as the most satisfactory solution of the financial difficulties we have in hand. I refer only to the matter so that the Committee may be in full possession of the knowledge that decisions may be involved in this larger question which may cover the smaller adjustments of finances we have to-day under our consideration. I think the Committee will probably now be able to come to a decision in this matter. If I may say so, I have a suspicion that the champions in the Debate of extreme courses, on either side, really knew that the Government could take no other course than that which it has taken. We have had most interesting demonstrations in force on both sides. I hope the Committee will see its way to pass the Resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The Orders of the Bay were read, and postponed.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, DURHAM.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

7.48 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: I want to raise the question of the administration of the means test by the commissioners in the county of Durham. I will begin by explaining that Durham is not in a normal condition. There are 76,667 fewer men employed in Durham to-day than there were in 1924, and with that big army of unemployed we are in the position of a distressed area. We are in an extremely bad position, because apart from mining there is no industry in which men can get work. Although the position in Durham was so bad, the Minister thought it wise to bring commissioners into Durham to administer the means test. They started on 1st December, and the Minister has told us that during the first month of their administration they reduced transitional payments in more than 10,000 cases and abolished them in more than 3,000 cases. Some of the decisions of the commissioners one can describe only as being brutal and inhuman, and as we have plenty of time I will give the House some samples of them. First I will take the case of a strong, able bodied man living in Page Bank. He is in receipt of a service pension of 5s. 3d. per week, is married and has a wife and two children. He pays 8s. a week rent. When he received his service pension on 4th January the commissioners wanted to know how he had spent it, and when he satisfied them on that point they reduced his transitional payment by 7s. 3d. per week, leaving that man, with his wife and two children, and with 8s. to pay in rent, with only 20s. per week and his pension. Here is the case of another man whom I know well as a good worker. His wife died and he went to live with his married daughter. The daughter's husband had been killed and she received compensation. Because the married daughter was receiving compensation for the death of her husband they reduced the father's benefit by 5s. 3d. per week. A letter was sent to me by one of our miners lodges. The miners' secretary wrote:
Sunnybrow stopped work temporarily on 16th April, 1932, and they have had to apply for transitional benefit. The owners
have not charged the men any rent and have allowed them coal at 1s. per cwt. We as a lodge protest against the area officer at Bishop Auckland cutting the benefit on account of the men not paying rent. The cuts are as follows: Man and wife and child, 3s. 3d. per week; man and wife and three children 4s. 3d.; men on compensation, light-work rate 9s. 3d. per week; men who have a lad working and his wage is 10s. per week have "lost 15s. per week, all based on the free house. Surely this cannot be justice—to take advantage of the generosity of the owners, who allow the men to live in the colliery houses until the pit starts, when they will pay double off-takes.
I will not weary the House with cases, and the next I select is that of a man and wife with five children. The Minister can have these letters and the names and addresses of the men if he wishes. This man says:
I was receiving unemployment pay of £1 13s. 3d. and 8s. 4d. per week compensation For my accident, making a total of £2 1s. 7d. for seven of a family—my wife and myself and five children, ages ranging from 13 years and six months down to three years. But the means test man came to my house and took all particulars of my case and on the 22nd December, 1932, they took 5s. 9d. off my unemployment pay, leaving me to draw £1 7s. 6d.
There is a man with a wife and five children reduced to £1 7s. 6d. and 'his compensation, which is a breach of the Act of Parliament passed by this House dealing with the 50 per cent, men receiving workmen's compensation. I will return later to that Act. Then here is the case of a man who says:
I am a widower with a child over 14 years of age. I have a widowed mother and also a nephew who is living with me who is 23 years of age, in work and receiving £1 13s. per week, but I might state that he is just managing to keep going to pit He is weak. He was born seven months after his father was killed at Stanley Pithead 24 years next month, and with his mother, my sister, getting such a fright at that time left him as white as driven snow, and the commissioners clerk says his wage has got to keep me, his uncle and my daughter and his grandmother. I was receiving £1 5s. 3d. dole for mother and child, and seven weeks since they took 9s. 9d. and this week other 10s. 6d. leaving me with 5s. per week.
We understood that transitional payment would not be reduced unless means were going into the house. Here is a case of a man and his wife receiving 23s. 3d. per week, and they have taken 3s. 3d. off, although there is no other income going into the house, a clear,
distinct breach of what was intended when transitional payment was made. Here is another case of a war widow's pension being taken into account. This lad says:
My mother is a War widow and there are two of us out of work.
I would tell hon. Members that it is no uncommon thing for two sons in a mining family to be out of work. Sons follow the father into the mine, and when the pits stop both father and sons, it may be two or three or more, are all out of employment together. The letter goes on:
We were getting 15s. 3d. per week each, but the means test has reduced this down to 9s. for one and 7s. for the other. I have been to see the commissioners and they say they are allowed to take all of my mother's pension into account. There are four of us in the house, my mother, sisters and brother. My mother has to keep my sister at home on account of ill-health.
They have reduced these two sons by 16s. per week, and they expect a war widow's pension to be used towards keeping those sons. I have given those cases merely as a sample—there are many more of them—of the inhuman and dastardly work of the commissioners in the county of Durham. The trouble is that the commissioners are so savagely cutting the transitional payment and men have no appealing. The cuts are made not by the commissioners themselves but by the clerks whom they employ. If the men go to the clerks and say, "We do not agree with the cuts, we want to see the commissioners," the clerks hold up their hands in horror and say, "What, see the commissioners! Oh, you cannot do that." They refuse the applicants the privilege of seeing the commissioners. I hold that when a man's benefit has been cut he is entitled to an appeal somewhere. If a man in receipt of standard benefit has his benefit reduced or abolished, he always has an appeal to the umpire. These men have no appeal. They are subject to the decision of the clerks, and those office boys make reductions or abolish the benefit, and the applicants cannot get to the commissioners.
I have a letter from the secretary of a branch of the British Legion in my Division in which he gives the names of seven men who made application to see the Commissioner and it was refused in every case. The Minister can have this letter, too, and can investigate the
matter if he wishes. I submit to the Minister that it is absolutely wrong for anyone to reduce transitional payment and then refuse an application to appeal to the Commissioner. I understood when the Commissioners were sent down, and especially when they were so well paid— and they are well paid—that an applicant who had been unfairly treated would be able to have an interview with them and put his case. Our experience is, as this letter shows, that when men see the Commissioners they are refused permission to put their case. I want to complain strongly that these men have no appeal. I want to submit that they are entitled to appeal, and that they find it impossible to appeal to the Commissioners.
I want to carry that matter a step forward, and to complain that the Minister refuses to answer questions in this House in regard to the decisions of the Commissioners. I hold that the Minister ought not to try to drop responsibility. He is responsible for appointing the Commissioners and he ought to answer in this House for any of the decisions of the Commissioners. These Commissioners are administering State funds; that was the argument used by the supporters of the Government when the means test was decided upon. Seeing that the Commissioners are administering State funds, I claim that any hon. Member is entitled to put a question to the Minister of Labour, if he wishes to know what the Commissioners are doing in regard to those State funds.
Not only do I claim that the Minister should answer any question and is wrong in refusing to do so, in regard to decisions of the Commissioners upon questions of transitional payments, but I complain that I put a question last week to the Minister which he should have answered and did not. The question which was on the Order Paper, and which the Minister refused to answer, dealt with the situation which exists in the county of Durham. A number of miners' daughters in that county have come to London and have gone into domestic service. The area officer has instructed officials, who were going to miners' houses, to get the addresses of those daughters in domestic service, for the purpose of writing to the employers of the daughters to know what wages the daughters were receiving. That
information was required in order that the wages might be used to justify a reduction in the payments to the fathers. I submit that that is a mean action on the part of the Commissioners, and I am surprised that the Minister of Labour did not at once either deny or condemn it. If certain girls are in domestic service in London, and, it may be, are earning 10s. per week, and if that sum is to be counted in order to reduce the payments to the fathers, the result will be that you will not be able to induce girls to go into service. It is just about one of the meanest things, to get the addresses of the people who are employing miners' daughters in. order to reduce the fathers' allowance.
I want to say a word about the Bill that was passed dealing with the 50 per cent. War pension and the 50 per cent, workmen's compensation. This House believed that it had at last safeguarded 50 per cent, of the War pension for ex-service men and 50 per cent, of the compensation for workmen who had been injured. I will give the House the case of a man who was receiving 8s. 4d. per week in workmen's compensation, and whose money has been reduced by 5s. 9d. That is more than 50 per cent., and is a clear breach of the Act of Parliament. I have been informed by many men in Durham that when they go to the Commissioners and complain that their rates of benefit have been reduced, they are told: "We are not interfering with your War pension; we are just reducing your dole." That is the answer that those men receive from the clerks in the offices of the Commissioners. This House did not understand that, when the Bill was passed. It believed that 50 per cent, of the War pensions and 50 per cent, of the workmen's compensation would be safeguarded.
I put one other thing to the Minister and did not get a reply. In Durham, we have a lot of men living not far from a temporary Employment Exchange. Because they are living in a certain district, if they are not in when the inspector or the official visits them, the visitor leaves instructions that the men have to present themselves the next day at an Exchange 12 miles away. It seems to me foolish that the official should expect men to be in the house when he comes. A man who is out of employment ought to be away seeking work. I submit that if that
is the way the officials are administering the benefit in that area, they should be prepared to pay the omnibus fares of those men. To expect them to travel 12 miles there and 12 miles back simply because they did not happen to be in the house when the official called, seems to be a ridiculous proposition, and I want to hear what the Minister of Labour has to say about it. We have every justification for complaining of the way that the means test is being administered by the Commissioners in the County of Durham. It is being administered, I say again, in the most inhuman and brutal way, and I expect the Minister to give us some satisfaction on these matters.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: I believe that it is well that the Government should know that the feeling of anxiety which the administration in Durham is causing, is not confined to the political supporters of the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). Throughout the whole of the county there is a feeling of anxiety lest there should exist among the people, through no fault of their own, a hardship which might be avoided by a wider and more tolerant administration. So far as I can judge public opinion, the people of Durham are as keen as ever they were to obviate waste in the administration of public funds, and they are exceedingly anxious to prevent people who do not need assistance from taking unjustifiably from the public purse. Alongside that desire, runs a very strong feeling which will not tolerate hardship being suffered by people who are already suffering through no fault of their own, from the misfortunes of the times, and who are, we know, honest and decent people.
I have received numerous letters from my constituents. I have interviewed the commissioners in Durham more than once, and I find that they are exceedingly anxious that the administration should be fair and just. They are more than willing to consider any case that may be put up to them, and I am glad to think that I have personally been able to secure the revision of cases with the result that determinations which had been made have been increased. This administration is, however, going deeper than that. In Durham County we have a mass of population suffering long-term unemployment. The commissioners have
started to work a scale which is lower in some respects than the scale normally worked by the public assistance committees. I am firmly convinced, from my own knowledge of the district, that the scales which the commissioners are working are not adequate to meet the needs of the people. If that is so, then that administration cannot be justified on any grounds, because it is administration primarily to meet the needs of the unemployed.
Looking at it from another point of view, I believe that we cannot go on in the Durham County without a great deal of social discontent, if we are to have the anomaly of two different scales operating at the same time. It is quite impossible for two different authorities to work two different scales in connection with people who are living in the same district and in the same street. The experience of the public assistance committees in Durham County taught them that the scale which they were working was not too great, having regard to the conditions of living. I want to impress upon the Minister that the scale which is being worked by the commissioners is far too low to meet the needs of the applicants.
I sometimes wonder if this House realises just what unemployment means to coal-mining districts like Durham. It is not a question of providing a man with a little bit of money to carry him through two or three weeks of unemployment. He could carry on, on those scales which the Commissioners are operating, if he was only to be unemployed for two or three weeks. He could get food, but when it comes, not to two weeks or months, but to years, he is left with no margin for the renewal of underclothing, boots, ordinary household utensils, or bedclothes. There is a gradual depression of the standard of life of the people, a depression which has become so terrible that some of us in the county of Durham are almost giving up hope. This is not, with us, a question of politics at all. I do not want to try to make political capital; I do not want to score political points off hon. Members opposite; but in this county, which I have seen in prosperous times, in which I have lived for many years, and where I have moved about among the people, I have seen them going lower and lower. This cannot go on if we are ever to keep our people in a position in which they can resume
their ordinary place in the industrial activities of the world. That is one claim that I make—that the scales are too low having regard to the nature of the district, and that you cannot compare that district with districts other than coal-mining districts, because of the long periods of unemployment suffered by a very high percentage of the population.
I want to say a word in reinforcement of the hon. Member for Spennymoor with regard to pensions. I do not know of a case where the Commissioners have taken more than 50 per cent, of a pension—that is to say, of a pension that is laid down in the Act; but there are other things kindred to pensions which it is very difficult to explain are not really in the same category, such as the dependant's pension. I have a case which I could give to the Minister, and which I have taken up with the Commissioners — that of a dependant's pension, a widow's pension, of 26s. 8d. a week. She has two sons who fall idle, and, I suppose, remain idle for a good while. They go before the Commissioners, and are awarded 6s. per week each. I am making no complaint against the Commissioners; I know that that is above their scale. You cannot complain of the Commissioners, and it is somewhat unfortunate that we can hardly complain of this House, but the fact remains that, when the House passed the Pensions Act leaving 50 per cent, of pensions untouched, the great majority of us thought that it was pensions, and that there was not going to be the fine distinction as to whether it was a disability pension or a widow's pension. Of the two, I think that, if we are to choose in degrees, it is the more terrible to take the widow's pension.
There is another point which has come out in connection with this administration, and which I think is a violation of the principle of the Poor Law. I may be wrong, and, if I am, I hope the Minister will put me right. I have a case where a man is living in the household of his brother-in-law. The brother-in-law is in work; the applicant is the person who is lodging in the house, the head of which happens to be his brother-in-law; and, in determining his need, the Commissioners take into account the income of the household. I say that in law, so far as my knowledge takes me, the head of that
house cannot be made responsible for his wife's relations, that in this case the applicant is entitled to be treated by the Commissioners as an able-bodied single man applying for Poor Law relief, and that they have no right to take into account what is coming into the household. Nevertheless, I am told, when I take up this case, that the Minister has no authority to question or interfere with the decisions of the Commissioners. If that be the position at which we have arrived, we have drifted, as a House and as a public authority, into a very dangerous position. I always thought that the central point of our political liberties lay in the fact that the control of the public finances rested in this House, and there is a great deal of difference between the House delegating its responsibility to an elected authority like a Public Assistance Committee and its delegating its authority to a government-appointed triumvirate in regard to which the public have never been consulted, and the qualities of which nobody knows except the Department that administers it.
I want to enforce upon the Government the consideration of these three things: first, that you cannot go on in the County of Durham and maintain social peace and contentment unless you are prepared to bring up the scales of the Commissioners to the level of the previous scales for the Poor Law; secondly, that the scales applicable to the less depressed areas cannot in any sense be regarded as sufficient for an area whose depression has lasted for 10 years; and, thirdly—and this is my most important point on the matter of good government in this country—that you cannot go on allowing the administration of public funds, an administration which penetrates quickly to the hearts and homes of the people, to continue without a proper, responsible control of that administration in this House through the elected representatives of the people and through the Minister in the Government who is responsible for the administration.
I put forward these three points in no spirit of partisanship. I make the appeal because I know the people on whose behalf I am appealing. I am not here, as my hon. Friends know, in any sense as a Labour man, but it would be a bad day for this country if we confirmed by our actions or policies in this Parliament a belief, which is held in many quarters,
that the working people cannot find friends except in the party opposite. We are in this House as the trustees of the whole of the people. Let us appeal to the conscience of the whole of the people to prevent injustice to the few, and those the most unfortunate.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: My hon. Friend who has raised this matter to-night has not only rendered a service to the County of Durham in doing so, but has given us an opportunity of considering one of the most important questions that this House can face, namely, the question which has just been raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry). To-night we are considering an administration which, according to the answer to a question this afternoon, involves an expenditure, for one week that was taken, of £800, representing, on an average, about £40,000 a year; and all the calculations that have been made and all the figures that have been given by the Minister seem to indicate that the cost of the administration is going to be round about that figure, I have been wondering where are the watchdogs of finance and expenditure and extravagance on the occasion of a discussion of this description. Here is a chief commissioner who receives £1,200 a year, and he has two deputies who receive £700 a year each. I have never heard any criticism or demand for economy in reference to people of this description. Their work is to administer, in the name of the Minister, the transitional payments covering, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, some tens of thousands of people. It is a very important point for the House to consider whether we have simply to take chance opportunities to overhaul their administration and expenditure or whether we have to make up our minds that a definite opportunity is going to be given to consider this matter in its entirety. The Minister refuses to deal with cases. He refuses to have any responsibility for them. Every time he has stated that he has no responsibility with reference to the administration in this county, all that it has done is to stiffen the commissioners in their administration. As a result of their almost insolent administration, in six weeks they have saved £15,000 from
people who are in the main the poorest in the country. My hon. Friend has been very eloquent in his description of the condition of these people. I know nothing more lamentable in my experience than to see the decay in the style of clothes and in their bearing, to see men whom I knew at the mine and whom I knew when they marched in all their pride to enlist, and to see them to-day unemployed and broken. It is no wonder that one of them said to me, as we talked about an old friend who was killed in action, that he was lucky to have gone down rather than face what my friend himself was facing.
How has this £15,000 been saved? By taking in the income of a son of 25, 30 or 35, who was, it may be, saving up to get married. Some of these men are getting 6s. and 7s. a day. My friend described how they travelled in the omnibuses. At one time they lived close to the colliery and the employers engaged them at their door. They do not do that now. They take on whom they like, and they take men from distant parts. I have seen these men on that shoulder where my hon. Friend lives, in raw Alaskan weather, travelling on omnibuses soaking wet. Some of them would actually make more on unemployment benefit if they were idle than they are getting from the pit. £15,000 in six weeks has been taken from these people. It is shameful that administration of that kind should be allowed to go on. How has it happened? I gave the right hon. Gentleman some typical cases. I know it is true, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, that the commissioner will meet him and will meet me, but I do not want him to meet me and I will not give him the chance. What I want him to do is to meet the representative men on the spot who can deal with the men's cases. He will give us cases but what is his attitude towards the people themselves? The fact of the matter is that they have been cutting and slashing right and left on the assumption that the average man has not sufficient personality and cannot put his case and will not appeal. I can give the case of a very able young secretary who could not meet the chief so he went to some deputy or other to deal with the case of an ex-service man who had been left 10s. of transitional payment. After they had argued and talked, the clerk who was doing the
business said in a supercilious tone that he would reconsider it. He reconsidered it all right but he took the 10s. off the man. An arrangement has now been made for some meeting in this case, but it is indicative of what is going on generally throughout the county.
They take a man's gross wages. The right hon. Gentleman saw the pay notes and how they reckoned the income. There are sometimes four or five shillings to be taken off. There is money in connection with the man's work for buying powder or sharpening his picks and things of that description. He really gets what they call at the bottom of the note the net income. That is a thing that ought to be put right, and it ought never to have happened under proper administration. In some cases a man's income is reckoned on what he had last week, but this week he is sick. In another case the son's transitional payment was assessed on what his father had last week, but he has his sick benefit this week and, when that is pointed out, there is no attempt to put the matter right. It is really a wrong calculation of the man's income.
In another case which ran for something like three weeks they had to admit that their calculations were wrong, and that the man ought to have been getting 3s. a week more. The 3s. was restored, but not for the weeks during which he had actually been robbed of it. That sum might not seem very much to Members of this House, but it is a very big thing to a man who has to live upon a few shillings a week. I wish to emphasise that the Minister will really have to take note of the point about pensions. They exclude 50 per cent, of the pension when calculating a man's income. But the amount going into the home is so totalled up that on the average income the man actually loses more than half of his pension. I believe the House is under the impression that a man was to get 50 per cent, of his pension on the top of whatever transitional payment he received. At any rate, that is not taking place.
I will give the example of another case. I received a letter—and I am prepared to give it to the right hon. Gentleman— from a soldier who had been out of the Army for about 12 months. He was
receiving 23s. 3d. for himself and wife. He also received, I believe, £4 10s. per quarter as Reservist pay, and when that fact was discovered he lost 8s. a week for five weeks. He is a man who is-seriously troubled with malaria, and he is now left with only £2 10s. of his quarterly Reservist pay. When he went to see the commissioner or whoever was acting in his place, the official said: "If we had really known what you had we would have taken 3s. more a week off you." That is the spirit in which this-matter is being dealt. It has almost amounted to insolence in some cases. I do not say that it is general. Certainly, the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to accept definite responsibility in this House for the overhauling and proper supervision of cases, and give the House an opportunity from time to time of really considering specifically the administration and the money which is spent, has had the effect of giving a sort of independence to the men who are in charge.
In bringing forward the matter to-night we have done our best to keep within the limits of the administration, and I am glad that we have had a protest from another quarter as well as from the party to which my friend and I belong. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that indignation is by no means limited either to the Liberal party or the Labour party. It is not limited to ordinary secular organisations. I have seen great church organisations express indignation about the administration. The disturbance and the indignation are widespread in the county of Durham, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt some fresh method of handling those cases. I want to see the Commissioners out altogether. The administration which was carried on voluntarily by some 360 members certainly made for peace. But if the Commissioners are to stop in at a cost of something like £40,000 a year in administrative charges, in addition to the payments which the Commissioners themselves are receiving, I hope that they will deal with a population which certainly merits kindness and most generous and sympathetic consideration. The right hon. Gentleman must really take hold of this matter himself, otherwise not only Durham, but the country will become indignant concerning the results of that administration.

8.41 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I am glad that we have had a discussion upon this question to-night, and I think that the House is entitled to it after the questions which have been asked and the answers which have necessarily been given at Question Time. I wish to express my personal regret that the hon. Gentleman who initiated the Debate to-night was disappointed the other night when he and I, through no fault of our own, had to wait for four hours for a discussion for which he and I were anxious. I thank him also for his courtesy on one occasion, at any rate, when he agreed to postpone the discussion to suit my convenience. I want to clear away one or two misconceptions, and I think that as a result of this Debate hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel that they have been justified in raising the matter in the way they have raised it. I want to explain, first of all, my position as the Minister of Labour. As the House will realise, it is my duty to carry out the obligations imposed upon me by the Acts passed by this House. I have no authority to do otherwise than to carry out, to the best of my ability, the specific obligations imposed by the Acts passed by this House and I am bound, therefore, to do my best to fulfil the duties which the House places upon me. May I remind the House exactly what those duties are? They are comprised in the Order in Council which, of course, has the authority of an Act of Parliament of 7th October, 1931. The Order in Council says in effect:
The applicant for transitional payment must fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that he is normally employed in, and will normally seek to obtain his livelihood by means of, insurable employment, and
(b) that he would but for the operation of the preceding paragraph of this article have been entitled to benefit."
It goes on:
And also proves that his circumstances are such that whilst unemployed he is in need of assistance by way of transitional payments.
That, of course, is the statutory authority for the imposition of the means test. Then the Order goes on to say that any question arising on this question of the means test
shall be remitted to the council of the county or county borough in which he is
resident and shall stand referred to such committee or sub-committee of the council as may be prescribed.
So that hon. Members will see that the duty of assessing this need is, in fact, imposed upon the appropriate committee which is the public assistance committee of the county of Durham. The Order goes on as follows:
Subject as hereinafter provided, a determination of a commitee or sub-committee under this paragraph shall be final.
The determination of the committee or sub-committee shall be final.

Mr. LOGAN: That is only applicable to a public assistance committee.

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, but the Order goes on further, and in Sub-section (4) of Section 1 it says:
A committee, or sub-committee, in determining any question under the last preceding paragraph, shall make such inquiries and otherwise deal with the case as if they were estimating the need of an unemployed able bodied person who had applied for public assistance, but as if such assistance could only be given in money.
The only other paragraph to which I need refer raises the point mentioned by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). That is Section 7, and I ask the House to follow the wording of this Section:
If in the opinion of the Minister any council, committee or sub-committee do not, or do not efficiently carry out the duties imposed on them by, or by virtue of, this Order, the powers and duties conferred or imposed on them as aforesaid shall be exercised and performed in their stead by such person or persons as the Minister may from time to time appoint.
That, of course, refers to the Commissioners. I need not go through the very long and patient negotiations which I have had with those responsible in the county of Durham, and I need not assure the House that the last thing I wished to do was to appoint commissioners. But the whole thing came to a head when the county council itself said definitely that they were not going to proceed with this administration.

Mr. LAWSON: On the conditions laid down by the Minister.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The position I was in, therefore, was this, either that I had to appoint commissioners or else, as the local authority refused to act, if
I did not appoint commissioners there would have been no transitional payment for anybody. My position was perfectly clear, and my duty was perfectly clear, after the 1st December, 1932, when I received this resolution of the Durham County Council:
This council hereby approves the action of the public assistance committee in refusing to administer transitional payments in accordance with the requirements of the Unemployment Insurance (National Economy) No. 2 Order, 1931.
A question has been raised to-night by several hon. Members with regard to the administration of the commissioners. According to my information the action of the commissioners has been, if I may use the words, more generous—I do not use the words in the sense that those who are getting these payments are receiving anything which is over lavish—what I mean is that according to my information the scale of the commissioners in Durham is more favourable than the scale in most industrial areas in England. In regard to the question of responsibility, the Order says clearly that my position in relation to the commissioners is exactly the same as my relation in regard to the public assistance committee. The Order says:
The commissioners shall exercise the powers and duties of the public assistance committee.
Therefore, my rights and my duty in regard to the commissioners are exactly the same as they are in regard to the public assistance committee.

Mr. LOGAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that a public assistance committee, which is elected by the people, can be compared to commissioners who are granted plenary powers and who are appointed by the Minister, and that there is to be no right of appeal from a body who are vested with plenary powers?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That argument, which has been courteously advanced by the hon. Member, would have been relevant when the Order was under discussion, but I am bound by what the Order says. The Order says that a decision of a public assistance committee shall be final, and under the Poor Law legislation the Minister of Health is not entitled to call for the reasons why a public assistance committee gives a particular allocation in a particular case. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr.
Batey) raised a variety of cases and instances of which he complained. I confess that I do not understand the point he raised with regard to the appeal. I accept what he has said as being the information he has received, but, in fact, there have been quite a number of appeals from what he called the local commissioners to the commissioner him self, and I am unable to understand how this misunderstanding should have arisen between those for whom he speaks and the commissioner. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) speak of superciliousness and arrogance on the part of the com missioners; and that is a matter on which I should like, and shall endeavour to get, further information. As a matter of fact, most of these local people, who have been described as clerks, are officials of the Ministry of Labour, and it is the first time I have ever heard as a reproach of the officials of the Ministry that they are either supercilious or arrogant. When we come to general responsibility —

Mr. BATEY: Are you leaving that point there?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am going to say something about it later on. When we come to general responsibility, of course, the Minister stands in the same relation to the Commissioners as to the public assistance authority, that is to say, that if he is satisfied that the commissioners are inefficient, or not carrying out their duties, he has a responsibility, and it is a responsibility of which I have not the slightest desire to divest myself.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman meet this point; it has been raised many times. The local body increased the scales and were superseded because they paid too much. That is the charge, they were giving more than they were entitled to pay. The complaint we make is that these commissioners are paying less than they should pay. Are we to understand that the local body, the public assistance committee can be superseded if they pay too much but that there is no interference with a body which pays too little.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Member has anticipated a point with which I proposed to deal. There has been a general charge against the administra-
tion, that it is not administration which would be approved by the Minister or this House if all the details were known. That is the point that the hon. Member makes. I am not at all sure whether I am empowered to call for a report, but, whether that be so or not, I am going to do it. I am going to call for a report from the Commissioner, and I am going to ask him to make a report on his general administration, at the end, say, of four months—

Mr. BATEY: Twelve months.

Sir H. BETTERTON: No, four months, or three months. I do not mind. Any reasonable time, so that we shall have an opportunity of seeing the whole picture. Hon. Members need not assure me about the distressed conditions in the county of Durham. Perhaps they will believe me when I say that, although I do not live there and am not brought face to face with the conditions as they are, I am only too conversant with the terrible conditions in the county. I know that there are parts of the county where one half, or much more than one half, of the whole population are out of work. I am going to call for a report from the Commissioner of his general administration, and when I get that report I will lay it on the Table of the House, or publish it or deal with it in whatever is the appropriate manner, in order that hon. Members may see the report of the Commissioner, which I should like to see myself. We can discuss the question with the facts before us. From my information and from what I know of the Commissioner, I cannot accept the charges that have been made, but at the same time I am anxious that a report should be made and that both I and the House should see it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to raise one point, and I hope some light will be thrown upon it in the report. It seems to me that a man not normally in insurable employment may become, according to the decision of the court of referees, chargeable to the Poor Law. I am anxious to know whether if a man is disallowed by the court of referees, he will not then be more generously treated by the public assistance people, and would it not be to the advantage of such men in a large number of cases to be deliberately cut off from benefit
at the Employment Exchange? I should like the report to give us some information on this matter.

Mr. LOGAN: In regard to cases which have ceased to get transitional benefit and would be entitled to Poor Law or institutional relief, will the Minister make inquiry to see if institutional treatment is offered to those people rather than that which they would get from public assistance relief?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot answer that question without going further into it. I am not sure whether that is or is not a question upon which the Commissioner might be fairly asked to make a report. If it is, I am sure that he will make it, but if it is not, he cannot be expected to make it. I think I have done my best to satisfy hon. Members that I am just as anxious as they are that these doubts and misconceptions should be set at rest, and I am equally anxious that the House should have a clear picture of what is going on in Durham.

9.0 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: This Debate has been raised by hon. Members from the county of Durham. If I intervene it is not in order to say anything in regard to the local aspects of the matter, of which I know nothing, but rather as a good Parliamentarian, as I hope I am, concerned to make sure that this House does in no way derogate from its position as the place where the grievances of the people may be ventilated in order to secure redress. That is the important principle that is raised by this Debate. When the system of transitional payments to be administered by local authorities was instituted, it was recognised that it brought with it certain dangers. The money that is disbursed is Treasury money. It is not money drawn from the local rates. One authority, the State, pays, and another authority, the local assistance committee, spends. Therefore, there is the obvious danger of serious abuse, and it was essential to provide that there should be some recourse to a remedy if that abuse occurred. So there had to be appropriate measures taken for substituting an authority representing the Government and the Treasury for a local authority if there were flagrant abuses.
Whether there were in this particular case flagrant abuses or not, I do not know. I am sure that everyone agrees that it is an unfortunate thing that the local public assistance committee should have had to be superseded. The position once they have been superseded is different from what it was when the matter was under the administration of the local authority, whatever the letter of the Order in Council may say, whatever the strict legal position may be. The local authorities were given power of administration because it was recognised that there were local variations. You could not lay down by Act of Parliament exact scales for the whole country. There had to be local differences of scales to meet local variations of circumstances. Conditions in the north of Scotland, for instance, might be different from those in London. There were differences between one county and another, the customs of one district and the customs of another varied, and you had to allow for those local variations.
If any citizen in any particular place were aggrieved by a decision and that decision arose out of action by the local authority, he could complain to his elected representative on the local authority. If the grievance arose from the terms of the Order in Council, he could complain to his elected Member of Parliament, and the matter could be raised here. But when a local authority is superseded by Commissioners, then, if there is a grievance, the citizen if his grievance arises out of the Order in Council can refer to his Member of Parliament, but if it arises out of a local matter as part of the administration then, according to what the Minister has said, in principle, there is no right of recourse to anybody. A Commissioner is put in place of the local authority, the local authority's decision, in principle, is final, and therefore, in principle, the Commissioner's authority is final. Whereas the citizen could, through his vote as a local elector, have taken action and have complained to his town councillor or his county councillor, in the present case the citizen can complain, so I understand, legally, to no one. Am I wrong?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have already stated the position. I have pointed out that the obligations which this Order in Council imposes upon me are the obliga-
tions placed upon me by this House, and I have to carry them out.

Sir H. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend does not dispute the story that I have just told, that, however the matter may be legally, in point of fact the citizen did have, by the administration of the local authority, means of redress through the constitutional system of government in this country, through his local representative on the town council or county council. Now he has no redress legally through anyone. That fact does place an additional and great responsibility upon the Minister, because it is only indirectly through this House, and through hon. Members and through questions such as they put and Debates such as they raise, that now the aggrieved person, whose grievance may be legitimate or not, can have some machinery through which he can secure redress. I am happy to say it will not happen, but suppose, theoretically, that half the local authorities of the country had to be superseded and the Minister had to carry out the supervision of transitional benefit over a vast area. It would be impossible to say here that he had no responsibility for the way in which that was administered once the Commissioners had been appointed. The country and this House would not tolerate it.

Mr. MARTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that every case, in which there is supposed to be a grievance ought to be allowed to come direct to this House?

Sir H. SAMUEL: I am coming to that, and perhaps the hon. Member will have patience. On the general principle these Commissioners cannot be regarded in the same light as judicial officers are regarded. By Statute a judge of the High Court gives a decision which is not open to challenge. A judge's decision cannot be reviewed in Parliament. A similar practice prevails, in almost the same degree, with regard to county court judges and stipendiary magistrates. There are certain statutory functionaries, like umpires under certain Acts, whose decisions are not called in question in this House. But these commissioners are not, I think, in that category. The Minister of Labour says that they have the powers and duties of the Committee which they have superseded under the Order-in-Council. The Committees who
have been superseded were entitled to give decisions which were final. Therefore, the commissioners are entitled to give decisions which are final, and no one can challenge them. But my right hon. Friend, most wisely I think, has said to-day that whatever may be the legal aspects of the case, whether he is empowered to do so under the Act or not, he proposes to call for a, report, to place it upon the Table of the House and to allow these decisions, if not to be reviewed at all events to be discussed by Parliament. But if they are absolutely final in law and cannot be challenged by anyone, what is the use of putting the matter before Parliament? Parliament may debate, and the commissioners can snap their fingers and go on as before.
Happily in this country we are not hidebound by legal formulas, and we deal with such a matter in a common sense way, as my right hon. Friend to-day is dealing with it, when he says, "Whether I am empowered under the Order or not, I recognise that it is necessary that these matters should be discussed generally, not particular cases, in the House of Commons, and I therefore am going to ask for a report, to lay it on the Table, and give an opportunity for discussion." I think the House will be very satisfied with what my right hon. Friend has said.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, but he must not read into my speech more than I said. I must not be taken to admit that this Order-in-Council gives me power to review individual cases, because it gives me nothing of the kind.

Sir H. SAMUEL: I agree. I was just coming to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Martin). Of course whatever the law may be, whether it admits it or not, it would not be feasible for this House of 615 Members to debate day by day and week by week individual awards, particular sums granted to particular families. There might be 100 cases put on the Order Paper in a week, and possibly 100 in a day. Obviously such a procedure would be out of the question, and I do not for a moment think that hon. Members opposite would desire to suggest it. But what they do suggest is that there should
be some means of considering categories of cases, and general rules, and that the Commissioners should not be regarded, whether they administer well or ill, as being absolute authorities whose decisions no one in any circumstances can challenge. That my right hon. Friend now admits.
Let me repeat that I think he is exceedingly wise to admit it, because necessarily the administration of the means test must give rise to great unpopularity. These people are suffering extreme hardship month after month and sometimes year after year, living in grinding poverty, and if the small sums given to them are cut down still further inevitably that must give rise to a more serious sense of grievance. The matter from the point of view of the Minister and from the point of view of the general relationship between the Government of the day and the general population, must be handled carefully and tactfully and sympathetically. If the people are told, "No matter what your grievance, these Commissioners are absolute and no one can challenge anything they can do, even in Parliament," that must increase the unpopularity and sense of grievance. I rejoice that my right hon. Friend has not taken that ultra strict view, but realises that the matter may be brought in general terms, in regard to categories of cases, before the House of Commons, and that he proposes in due course to give opportunity for that to be done.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I rather differ from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken regarding the publication of the report. My own view is that as far as administration of the means test is concerned, the publication of a report will not have any great effect on the commissioners, because by the time a report is published this Parliament will almost have finished the task of passing a new Unemployment Insurance Bill. The report might give Parliament an idea whether the powers contained in this Order should be extended in any new Act, but the report in itself will be of little value in connection with the means test as we know it. The means test is due to expire by the end of June of this year. The new Bill must be passed. The Minister says the report is to be published in two or three months. Let
us say three months. That means May or June. Parliament is bound to be in the midst of discussing the new Bill then. Therefore, so far as the commissioners in Durham are concerned, the report does nothing.
In the very nature of things the Minister must defend the commissioners. The commissioners were appointed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to cut down the expenditure of the Durham Public Assistance Committee in connection with transitional benefit. They were bound to cut it down, and in the nature of things they must cause terrible hardship. There is another grievance which I think is more important than the question of the report. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said that in Durham they had tried to get the administration carried on by the public assistance committee and had been defeated. They had not the power in this House to carry their point and the commissioner had been appointed. The hon. Member said that they regretted that fact but now that the commissioner had been appointed, he asked why the Minister should not give an applicant or an applicant's representative the right of personal appeal to the commissioner. Why does not the Minister do the humane thing? It is said that the procedure with the commissioner is the same as with the public assistance committee.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I do not think that any responsible official of any union will have any difficulty in getting before the commissioner in order to ask him to explain any decision.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I heard the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Law-son) say that representative men had been refused that right. What is to hinder the Minister from doing what I suggest? I want to have the report published in so far as it will show how the system works but what is to hinder the Minister from meeting this grievance? What is to prevent him from seeing if there is not any method whereby the Secretary of the British Legion, for instance, or officials of the Miners Union or officials of other organisations—anybody with any kind of standing—should have the right of approaching the commissioner? Why cannot the commissioner say in any case in which a person feels aggrieved "He will have the right of personal appeal; I will
consider his appeal myself or failing that I will meet any representative of any responsible body." The public assistance committees did so. It was not always successful but if people made complaints the committee met the representatives of any body of the kind I have suggested and discussed the matter.

Mr. MARTIN: In the case of Durham-a scale is laid down by the commissioner. Does the hon. Member suggest that anyone who feels that the scale is wrong should appeal, or that anyone who feels that his case has not been based on that scale should go to the commissioner?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know Glasgow which has a population of 1,000,000 or more and in Glasgow every person who feels aggrieved against his transitional payment has a right of appeal from the local committee to the main committee— dealing with public assistance.

Mr. MARTIN: My experience in Durham has been that whenever a case has been based on the scale laid down by the commissioner and there has been some flaw in the arguments based on that scale, the commissioner has willingly reheard the case.

Mr. LAWSON: May I intervene to put the hon. Gentleman and also the Minister right on this matter. In fact, any man who wanted to appeal from the public assistance committee did so. I knew of numerous cases of appeals when the public assistance committee was in operation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is the point which I want to put. There is, for instance, the question of soldiers' pensions. It was the intention of this House that the 50 per cent, provision was to apply to the whole pension, but the authorities are not carrying out the intention of the House. I think that when the House passed the 50 per cent, provision with regard to soldiers' pensions, they meant that the whole lot of the pension should be brought into it. Otherwise, we certainly should have raised the point. But I have a case of a man with a pension of 8s. a week and 2s. for his wife. The 50 per cent, is being allowed on the 8s. and he gets his 4s. all right, but his wife's 2s. is taken fully into account in assessing means. I think the Minister in cases of that kind should see whether
he has not power to put the administration on a more humane and generous footing.
As long as the means test lasts there are bound to be serious complaints. I I want the Minister to note the anomaly which exists in Durham. A man goes to the court of referees or to the Employment Exchange and, being three years unemployed, he is put off for not being normally in insurable employment. He decides that he is not going to fight his case—that he is going to lose it— and he then becomes chargeable to the public assistance committee as an able-bodied person. If he does not fight his case, he and his family will possibly be better treated that if he fought it. In many case it will be to the man's interest to become chargeable to the Poor Law. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was the same before!"] No, I say that the public assistance committee administered these provisions more generously than the Commissioners. That is undoubted in the case of Durham. If a man refuses to fight his case he becomes chargeable as an able-bodied citizen and he will receive more generous treatment than if he were receiving transitional benefit under the Act. Therefore, it is to his interest not to become a State charge but to become a charge on Durham.
That is the point, and I say that it is indefensible and shocking that the incentive should be to become a charge on Durham. There might have been the semblance of a case against Durham if Durham had been treating their able-bodied people less generously than those who were asking for transitional benefit. But Durham treated both the same. They carried on the generous treatment for the able-bodied and I think that reflects credit on the Durham committee. I say, frankly, to the Minister that while we shall read this report with interest, nobody need expect too much from it. It will be drafted by the Commissioner. It is not supposed to be polite to say such things in this House, but the fact remains that there will be no control over the Commissioner in regard to this report. A town clerk who is drafting a report has a committee working with him who have control over him, but the Commissioner who drafts this report will be free from any restraint or any interference.
Of course, we shall have a report published which will tell us about the abuses which formerly went on. For my part, I think the only good thing about the Commission is that it has proved that you cannot have a means test unless it is mean. The cost of administering this is £40,000 a year for a small county like Durham. I am perfectly certain that if you tried to run a means test on a generous scale you would not get the cost of administration back. I am only satisfied from the one point of view that the country has to choose between a miserable, shockingly, badly administered means test or no means test at all.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. McKEAG: As Member for a division which is the centre of Durham County and representing, as I do, the city from which these commissioners operate, I propose to add my voice to the protests against any possible abrogation of the authority of the House of Commons in this matter. I do not propose to indulge in any vilification of the commissioners. I choose rather to remember that the commissioners are carrying out a very difficult task in very difficult circumstances. I do not share the view voiced by certain hon. Members opposite that they are some vile thing which should not be touched with a barge pole. On the contrary, I have had numerous occasions to go to the commissioners to submit to them cases which have been put before me, and I have received from them every courtesy, and they have been most helpful to me in those cases. I do not think it is right to cast any reflection on the commissioners themselves, but, although I do not do that, I do not desire that they should be set up as despots and demi-gods, uncontrolled and uncontrollable. I cannot stand idly by and see any three men appointed as the final arbiters of the bodies and souls of thousands of people in the Durham district, people who have been unemployed for many years. Dissatisfaction has been expressed to-night over the administration. I, too, have been far from satisfied with what is going on. I am not satisfied over the scale which is being operated.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry), in a very powerful speech a little while ago, called the attention of the House to the great mass of poverty
existing in that district. He rightly said that unemployment benefit, transitional payment and public assistance payment can assist unemployed people over a difficult, short period, but as time goes on they become more and more impoverished. There are thousands of people in Durham County who have been unemployed, not for one or two years but for four, five, six and even seven years. As clothing wears out they are unable to replace it and as boots wear out they are unable to replace or to repair them. Indeed, there are people in my constituency whose crockery has gone gradually and who are now reduced to the position of having to drink tea out of jam jars. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) gave several examples of the administration. I believe I am correct in saying that in calculating the needs of any family they even take into account whether a man has a few hens in his back yard or garden and a sum is deducted approximating to one penny per week per head. I only mention that to indicate the lengths to which the calculation of family incomes can be taken. There can be no question that there are cases of grave hardships prevailing in that district.
I feel that the Commissioners are endeavouring to do their job as humanely as possible, but it is not right that any three men should be placed in a position of wielding an autocracy such as is now placed in their hands. It would be a lamentable thing if this House divorced itself from its ultimate responsibilities in matters of this kind. We must retain inviolate the prerogative of this House to operate as a final tribune. If it were otherwise, I suggest we might as well sound the death knell of Parliamentary government.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. CAMPBELL-JOHNSTON: The first thing I would impress on the House is that these Commissioners are highly trained men who have been trained in the administration of public assistance and have had years of experience. I know some of them myself, men who have been in my profession and at the Bar and who have had training in it and have a high knowledge of it. The second thing I want to suggest is that there is a
certain amount of misunderstanding on this subject. There is no such thing in the administration of public assistance as scales. The public assistance committees are given powers under certain rules and regulations—but not scales—to give what they consider fair, with the exception of transitional relief. Transitional relief is a flat rate but in public assistance they can give whatever they think the circumstances and needs of the applicant requires.

Mr. CURRY: It is a matter of common practice to lay down scales for their guidance.

Mr. CAMPBELL-JOHNSTON: I can only speak about London where I have administered public assistance myself and have had extensive experience of the public assistance committees. I simply know that the Minister of Public Health has time after time stated that he will not lay down scales. The commissioners have certain limits laid down by law as to how they shall administer transitional relief, and, if they supersede one of these committees, they have their regulations and limits within which they administer public assistance. I submit with all respect that, being, as they are, in the position of public assistance committees, all that they can be called upon to do is to exercise that discretion according to the law of the land. As the Minister said just now, these commissioners stand absolutely in the position of the public assistance committees and they have no more powers and no less powers, nor are they any more responsible or any less responsible to this House than the public assistance committees.

Mr. LOGAN: The hon. Member says that they are superseded by the commissioners. If they are superseded by the commissioners, is it not because of excessive scales laid down?

Mr. CAMPBELL-JOHNSTON: They are superseded by order of the Minister when they do not administer the ordinary relief, not according to the scales, but according to the law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes before Ten o'Clock.